asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that an NCO who served for 37 years in the Defence Forces and had a 31 years pension has that pension reduced to a 21 years pension on reaching the age of 66 years; and if he condones this reduction of £80 per month in the Army pension.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - NCO's Pension.
2.
Under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes soldiers' pensions consist of three elements: first, basic pension, second a long service increment for each year of qualifying service in excess of 21 years but not exceeding 31 years and, third, an additional increment in respect of each year of qualifying service in excess of 21 years but not exceeding 31 years.
The basic pension and the long service increment are paid to the pensioner during his lifetime. However, the additional increment terminates when the ex-soldier reaches the age prescribed for a contributory old age pension or becomes otherwise entitled to a retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts. The additional increment would, however, continue to be paid if, without his own default, the ex-soldier fails to qualify for a contributory old age pension.
This has been the position for very many years.
Would the Minister accept that when this period of service was completed by this soldier he was not under the impression that he got an increment but a pension for services rendered to his country? He felt this pension should continue for the rest of his life. Does the Minister agree that a soldier who gave 37 years to the service of his country merits equal treatment with the judge who has given five years service? One has given 37 years service on the field of battle and the other gave five years on the bench. Does the Minister not think this situation should be changed?
The analogy is inapplicable and is not accurate. A retired member of the Defence Forces does not suffer any reduction, it is merely a substitution by the State of one pension for another. When he reaches 66 years of age he gets the contributory old age pension instead of what has been a long service increment up to then. There is no reduction in his pension position.
In the letter I sent the Minister this man said he suffered a reduction of £80 per month in his income. Does the Minister maintain that he is wrong?
I do not know, the Deputy did not give the man's name. I signed a long and comprehensive letter to the Deputy today in relation to a person, and it is probably the same person, and I suggest the Deputy waits until he gets my letter and then we can pursue this in correspondence.
I will take this up with the Minister.