Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Monday, 30 Jul 1923

Vol. 4 No. 20

DAIL IN COMMITTEE.

[SECTION 5.]

On Section 5—I desire to ask the President if he would consider the cases I raised on the last stage. There is a question of distribution which I do not think it would be fair to press in view of the urgency of the Bill, and in view of the possibility that the Bill would be held up altogether if an amendment were pressed. There is one matter, however, which I do wish to press, and that is, if it is possible to include under this section the few pensioned teachers who retired before the 1st of April, 1900, and who would get no benefit whatever under the provisions of this Act. I am not sure as to the number of them, but I think they would not be more than a dozen, or 20 at most. They are very urgent cases, and I would be glad to know if the Minister has looked into the matter since the Bill was before us on the Second Reading.

I did not. I wish to know if the Deputy could give me any idea of the pensions paid to these people.

I am not quite certain as to the amount. I think they are not getting more than £20 or £30 a year on an average.

The difficulty I see is that that would alter the terms of the clause altogether, because it brings in new matter. The complaint that was made up to this was that certain penalisation took place through some accident, and we are endeavouring to arrest the disadvantages of the penalisation by this particular section. Now, what Deputy O'Connell suggests would bring in new matter altogether. They are not persons who are affected under the Teachers' Pension Rule, 1914.

That is just the difficulty in the case. What I suggest is that some amendment on these lines should be introduced: "That existing pensioners who retired before the 1st April, 1900, may be deemed for the purposes of the Pensions Increase Act to have been granted pensions under the Irish Teachers' Pensions Rule, 1914."

I am in a difficulty about these cases, first of all because these persons, even if their pensions ran from the year 1900, have got the benefit of the Increase of Pensions Act, 1920.

The people who have got that are the people to whom this Act applies.

There is a difference between them, because this Act gives the benefit of intermediate benefits. I take it that under the Rules of 1914 they are getting the benefit of that now. The point is, if they were not considered in 1914, why should they be considered now?

You are giving these people now by this Act the benefit of the 1914 Rules, because the 1914 Rules apply to all teachers from 1900 onwards. But you are not giving the benefit of the 1914 Rules to the few existing pensioners who retired before 1900. I cannot say definitely whether even half-a-dozen of them are in existence.

Or any at all.

Or any of them, but it is quite possible, and highly probable, that there are, and that you are shutting them out. In any case, if there are any they must 83 or 84 years of age now, and it will not be a very big drain and it will not be for very long, I suggest, even if you do include them. You are only giving them the benefit of these Rules from which they were shut out when the 1914 Rules were passed.

I think the Deputy ought to leave over that question, and we will consider it.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will consider it before the Bill is passed?

Oh, no. I want the Bill passed to-night. I want to remind the Deputy that we have something like 15 Bills on hands. We intend to introduce one, two, or possibly three, here and not to pass them. This particular item is a very small thing. I will look into it and see if anything can be done within the Pensions Scheme as it stands by an order, but I do not think you ought to press me any further. I had not time to consider it since the question was last raised.

Would the Minister consider the insertion of a clause which would give him the option of considering it?

I have been warned more than once by our legal advisers not to put in any terminology which a lawyer might not be able to interpret, and that is the danger of this. I think Deputy FitzGibbon will bear me out in that—that it is rather a dangerous thing.

In view of the fact that I believe it will be within the option of the Minister to deal sympathetically with this, apart from this Act, I will not press it, but I do hope that he will bear it in mind.

That will depend on my coming back here, of course. You know that.

Section 5 put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923, and Sections 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 of this Act and the Superannuation Acts 1834 to 1919 may be cited together as the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1923.
(2) Sections 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 of this Act shall be read as one with the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919.

I move: "In Sub-section (1), line 41, to delete the figures `7, 8, and 9,' and to substitute therefor the figures `8, 9, and 10.' " This is merely altering the numbers of the sections consequential on the introduction of a new section.

Amendment agreed.

I move: "In Sub-section (2), line 44, to delete the figures `7, 8, and 9,' and to substitute therefor the figures `8, 9, and 10.' " This is a similar amendment.

Amendment agreed.
Section 9, as amended, put and agreed to.
Top
Share