Pat Rabbitte
Question:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has for the introduction of a revised superannuation for Defence Force members; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Forces' Superannuation Scheme.
The Gleeson Commission recommended that revised superannuation schemes for the Defence Forces should be drawn up by my Department in consultation with the military authorities and the representative bodies and highlighted various aspects of the existing arrangements requiring detailed examination in this context.
The redesign of the Defence Forces superannuation schemes will involve a fundamental reappraisal of the existing arrangements and will be, in the words of the commission, "a task of considerable technical complexity". It is envisaged that the task will take some considerable time to complete. I am not in a position at this stage to say what the likely outcome will be.
Would the Minister of State say whether the process of negotiation, discussion or review, recommended by the Gleeson report, has been initiated?
My understanding is that over 60 per cent of the recommendations of the Gleeson report have already been implemented.
The Minister has missed again. He said that 60 per cent of the recommendations in regard to superannuation have been implemented. My question is: of the specific recommendations of the Gleeson report, at paragraph 10.8.16, that a review process involving negotiation should be initiated — to quote the report —"as soon as possible", that was in July of last year, has that process been initiated?
This is a matter for discussion between their elected representatives and the Department. All of these matters are being discussed and it will be a matter of time before they are finalised. Indeed I might add that the existing superannuation scheme is quite favourable — according to the Gleeson report — and some of the recommendations of Gleeson move away a little from the existing scheme, in some cases being a little better and in others a little worse.
Again we are at cross-purposes. Do I correctly interpret the Minister as telling us that specific discussions on the superannuation schemes have not begun and that the Minister is still in the process of negotiating the terms of reference with the various representative associations? As a consequence thereof — particularly in regard to those people close to retirement age to whom this issue is crucial — will there be any retrospective provision made for whatever conclusions are drawn up in respect of superannuation so that, whatever changes are implemented in this area, might be retroactive to the date on which Gleeson reported, that was 31 July 1990?
This task is rather complex. It will take some little time before it is finalised to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
Let us make some progress on other questions.
If the answers were not simply repeated irrespective of our questions we might make greater progress. Would the Minister of State, in conjunction with his Minister, consider implementing a retroactive provision for changes in the superannuation schemes, say, from the date of which Gleeson reported?
This is repetition.
That is all I am asking, but there has been no answer given. Would the Minister answer "yes" or "no" to that matter?
I have already dealt with that question.
I am calling Question No. 11.