As I understand it, the abatement concept is inherited from UK legislation and dates back to the 1830’s. There are some interesting comments about the logic and practice of abatement in a 1965 Dáil debate on the issue.
Whatever about abatement in the case of re-employment in the Public Service, it should be of concern that Army disability pensions are subject to the abatement regime.
A disability assessed at 20% (which is the minimum assessment level in order to qualify for a disability pension) shows up on the monthly pension payslip as a credit of around 20% (nineteen point something percent) of the pension, immediately followed by a debit of around 50% of that credit under the heading of abatement. This has been applied to pensions dating back 10+ years and probably much longer. Some of these pensions are paid to widows and even to children of deceased disability pension recipients. There are some tax benefits in spite of abatement, but if it wasn’t there…
It seems unbalanced to me that if because of state service a person carries a disease/injury so severe that a disability pension becomes payable, then the sufferer is probably unfit for full-time post-retirement employment anyway. But even if capable of full employment, his/her disability "allowance" is designated an income just the same as if he/she is employed, much less than a recognition of injury in the service of the state.
No criticism, but I’m surprised REMA didn’t approach the issue from the perspective of the disability pension system - it’s a fairly unique system, on the go since the late 1920’s. It might give a successful result in arbitration/judicial review which could then be used to try to chip away at the use of abatement for public service re-employment.
I’m fairly sure I heard some time ago that the disability pension abatement issue was going to be challenged, but I have no idea by whom, where, when or if this was wishful thinking on someone’s part!
Whatever about abatement in the case of re-employment in the Public Service, it should be of concern that Army disability pensions are subject to the abatement regime.
A disability assessed at 20% (which is the minimum assessment level in order to qualify for a disability pension) shows up on the monthly pension payslip as a credit of around 20% (nineteen point something percent) of the pension, immediately followed by a debit of around 50% of that credit under the heading of abatement. This has been applied to pensions dating back 10+ years and probably much longer. Some of these pensions are paid to widows and even to children of deceased disability pension recipients. There are some tax benefits in spite of abatement, but if it wasn’t there…
It seems unbalanced to me that if because of state service a person carries a disease/injury so severe that a disability pension becomes payable, then the sufferer is probably unfit for full-time post-retirement employment anyway. But even if capable of full employment, his/her disability "allowance" is designated an income just the same as if he/she is employed, much less than a recognition of injury in the service of the state.
No criticism, but I’m surprised REMA didn’t approach the issue from the perspective of the disability pension system - it’s a fairly unique system, on the go since the late 1920’s. It might give a successful result in arbitration/judicial review which could then be used to try to chip away at the use of abatement for public service re-employment.
I’m fairly sure I heard some time ago that the disability pension abatement issue was going to be challenged, but I have no idea by whom, where, when or if this was wishful thinking on someone’s part!
Last edited:
