Vol. 527 No. 2
5 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Finance if he will resolve the problems surrounding pen sion entitlements of retired public service staff who retired before the commencement of the PCW and restore the links between pension rates and current rates of pay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24065/00]
I would like to make it quite clear that the question of restoring pensions parity does not arise since it has not been removed. The position is that in June 1997, in its Action Programme for the Millennium, the Government undertook to protect public service pensions. In November 1997, the Government announced that the benefit of the restructuring pay deals under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work would apply on the basis of parity to public servants who had retired before the commencement dates of those deals, the only change being that there would be a guaranteed minimum increase of 3%, or 2% in the case of any pensioners who had already received an advance payment of 1%.
Following the Government decision in November 1997, my Department issued comprehensive guidelines for dealing with cases. Some organisations had difficulties in interpreting how these guidelines applied to certain groups of pensioners. These issues were subsequently resolved and my Department, along with other Departments, made every effort to ensure that public sector bodies implemented fully the terms of the Government decision.
There were however problems due to the fact that some pensioner groups objected to the terms of the guidelines. Those guidelines were framed with full regard to the way that parity had traditionally been applied even before the PCW deals were negotiated and, as such, they excluded pensioners from benefiting from payments such as new allowances, existing non-pensionable allowances being made pensionable for the first time, long service increments which were personal to certain serving groups of employees, post upgradings, etc. Despite this, some pensioner groups sought to have the benefit of such payments applied to them. It would of course have been a breach of parity to do this.
Earlier this year, it was agreed with the unions concerned that the personal long service increments paid under the various PCW restructuring pay deals would be made permanent for serving staff with effect from 1 April 2000. Accordingly, these long service increments are being passed on to the relevant pensioners in the normal way provided that they have the required service on the maximum of the relevant scales.
The benefit of all relevant pay increases since November 1997 under Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness have been passed on to pensioners.
This saga is becoming more interesting and confusing as it goes on. The Minister recognised as far back as 4 November 1997, and the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste gave a pre-election commitment on 4 June 1997, that, on coming into Government the Minister would, I will quote—
The Deputy may not quote during Question Time.
He said he had given an undertaking that he would restore parity but in his reply today he said they were not denied parity. There is confusion. His letter in reply to my letter to him of 2 November is at variance with a corresponding statement from the Department of Education and Science. A small group of people is being denied pension parity. Retired principals and deputy principals are given the three standard allowances but their allowance as deputy principal and principal is denied. It is an integral part of their salary but it is not recognised. The Minister's statement today and the one he made on 2 November, together with the pre-election promises made in 1997, will do nothing but add to the confusion.
There may be confusion among certain groups but I am not confused. In the first sentence of my reply I stated that the question of restoring pensions parity does not arise simply because it has not been removed. This was such a difficult area that the previous administration could not arrive at a solution. It did not do anything before the 1997 election when it became an issue. We made that statement. In November 1997 I made the change. I introduced it in the way put forward by the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It was back-dated and I put forward a floor. The public services committee of congress welcomed what I did and said it was in line with what should have been done. It said this was what it had advocated and that it was pensions parity.
There are some groups that are trying to create a new principle about the term "pensions parity". I adopted the position put forward by ICTU and inserted a floor which pleased congress. Subsequently, there were difficulties with some organisations in implementing it but these have been ironed out. However, I accept what the Deputy says that there are some groups who are endeavouring – I do not mind them doing so – to create a new, what they would deem to be, pensions parity. I adopted the position put forward by ICTU. It was so difficult that the previous Government could not deal with it. I implemented it and was complimented by congress on doing so. It was in line with what it wanted.
The way in which the PCW was implemented in this case denied parity. There is a small group involved and I ask the Minister to review the matter. This group has been treated differently in so far as, at present, ordinary stan dard teachers are paid twice per month and this group is still only paid once a month.
