Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 3 October 2017
248. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the cost of awarding pensions to 20 living gardaí who left the force for any reason before 1 October 1976 having served the required five years service or more; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41730/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraPrior to 1 October 1976, where a member of An Garda Síochána resigned or was dismissed before reaching the age and service at which he could retire on pension, that member forfeited all superannuation benefits under the then Garda Síochána Superannuation Scheme. This situation was changed following discussions at the Garda Conciliation Council, the industrial relations machinery for members of An Garda Síochána. It was agreed at that time by both sides, the official side and the Garda representative associations and endorsed by the then Minister for Finance, that the new arrangements should apply to members of An Garda Síochána serving on, or after, 1 October 1976. By extension these new terms did not and cannot apply to members who had left An Garda Síochána prior to that date. Generally speaking, these Agreed Reports provide that a Garda who resigned or was dismissed on or after 1 October 1976 can have superannuation benefits accrued to the date of resignation or dismissal, preserved until the member reached 60 years of age.
The then Department of Finance, and now Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER, which continues to have overall responsibility for public service pension matters, agreed with the proposals for a cut-off date for eligibility for preserved benefits.
Similar arrangements have also been introduced in pension schemes across the public sector with varying, "cut-off" dates depending on the particular organisation involved and the conclusion of negotiations between management and the relevant staff interests.
I must stress that this was an agreed date between all of the parties involved in the discussions and was not imposed. It is an inevitable consequence of the introduction of improvements in pension schemes that members of that scheme who had left it prior to the effective date cannot avail of that benefit.
My Department has consulted the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and has been advised that the position remains that it is not possible to resolve a case individually on an administrative basis and provide an individual with preserved benefits without changing the terms of the scheme retrospectively. Such amendment would, in equity, have to cover all public servants who resigned prior to the effective date applicable to their schemes. That Department has further stated that changing the various schemes to change the cut-off date is not a practicable proposition. As there are no proposals to backdate the existing dates for the introduction of the preservation of superannuation benefits it would require the use of a disproportionate amount of scarce resources on the part of my Department to seek to calculate the cost of awarding pensions to the group of former members referred to by the Deputy.
