Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,168,827 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Aoisliúntaisí, Cúiteamh, Liúntaisí agus Aisci Truagha agus Breise fé Reachtanna iolardha; Cúiteamh fé Airtiogal 10 de Chonnra an 6adh Mi na Nodlag, 1921; Liúntaisí Truagha, Aiscí agus Pinsin Bhreise a deonadh ag an Roinn Airgid; Tuarastal an Dochtúra Réitigh; agus íocaíochtanna iolardha i dtaobh Pinsean a iocann an Rialtas Briotáineach fé láthair.

That a sum not exceeding £1,168,827 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate and Additional Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes Compensation under Article 10 of the Treaty of the 6th December, 1921; Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Department of Finance, the salary of the Medical Referee; and sundry repayments in respect of pensions at present paid by the British Government.

This Vote covers the payment of ordinary pensions under the Superannuation Act, of civil servants in all departments of the State except the Post Office, the charge for which is shown in sub-head (n) of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. This Vote includes further charges for the pensions of the police force amalgamated to the Gárda Síochána. In previous years the pensions of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were borne on the Vote for that force. The pensions of National Teachers are borne on the Teachers' Pensions Fund, towards which grants-in-aid amounting to £56,737 are made under sub-head (d) of the Vote for Primary Education, No. 42. Judicial pensions amounting to £43,233 are borne, as shown on the foot of the Estimate, on the Central Fund. The total sum involved for superannuation charges in respect of these services amounts to £2,069,797.

Under sub-heads (a), (b), (c), (d) of this Vote provision is made for the payment of pensions, allowances, and gratuities payable to Civil Servants who have retired from the various Departments, except the Post Office, on or after the 1st April, 1922. Sub-heads (a) and (b) show the provision made for pensions, additional allowances and gratuities payable to civil servants who shall have retired for the end of the present financial year, in the normal course under the existing Superannuation Acts. Sub-heads (c) and (d) show the provision made to cover expenditure likely to arise in connection with the compensation payable to persons who retire from the Service—except the Post Office—under Article X. of the Treaty.

The figures up to the 27th of last month show that 795 persons have retired from the service of the State in consequence of the change of government. Of course that includes discharged cases as well as people who retired and took the Treaty terms. There were 325 retirement cases. The discharged cases amounted to 470 altogether, and were made up as follows:— Resident magistrates, 36; petty sessions clerks, 305; crown solicitors, 23; Marlborough Street Training College (which was closed), 53; various Local Government officials, including commissioners, inspectors, auditors, pharmacists, 12; a permanent member of the Congested Districts Board and a solicitor, 2; one under-secretary, who was performing no functions after the setting-up of the Saorstát; one metropolitan magistrate; some fourteen messengers and cleaners in the Supreme Court, and some twenty-three other miscellaneous officers.

From time to time there has been a great deal of discussion in regard to these discharges, and it has been suggested that a policy of wholesale discharges was being pursued merely with the object of providing places for other people.

I think Deputies will realise that at the time we set up the district courts, when we had simply the Army in some parts of the country, when we had no police forces, but were beginning to send out the Civic Guard, it would have been impossible to pursue any other course in regard to the resident magistrates and the petty sessions clerks. If we had endeavoured to carry on with the resident magistrates it would certainly have been impossible for the district courts to function. If we had carried on even with the petty sessions clerks, the possibility of the Civic Guards being able to do their duty under the courts and for the courts to carry on their work would be greatly lessened. Of the 470 people whom we discharged, 341 were resident magistrates and petty sessions clerks. The Crown solicitors were also involved, as it was simply a question of getting confidence in the new courts, and getting them established and to work. It was just as necessary that a new body of State solicitors should be set up as that a new body of district justices should be appointed. Altogether some 364 of the 470 discharges were discharged in connection with the courts. There were others that I have referred to who were redundant, the messengers and cleaners, and one metropolitan magistrate. The discharges in connection with the courts amounted to about 100 people, and 53 discharges arose through the closing of Marlborough Street Training College, which became unnecessary under the new circumstances. I think these figures amply demonstrate that there was no such thing as a process of dismissals for the purpose of providing positions into which favoured people might be put. This is a matter that has been dealt with on other occasions, but like all false rumours and charges, when once started it is very difficult to overtake and kill. It is probably no harm to refer to it again.

The figure in connection with the Post Office corresponding to the total of 795 is 658. I think that there were practically no discharges in the Post Office. The big majority, if not all, were people who retired to take advantage of the Treaty. I think they were all men. Under sub-head (j), provision is made for the continuance of pensions that have already been granted to 455 resigned and dismissed R.I.C., and for the grant of pensions to a certain number of other cases which are still under consideration. The cases still under consideration include, roughly, eighty-five resigned and dismissed members of the R.I.C. who are at present in full-time employment in the Gárda Síochána. Naturally their pensions, except to a small extent, will not become payable during their period of employment in the Gárda Síochána. A certain proportion of the pensions will be paid to bring them up to the amounts that they would have had if they had had their R.I.C. service added to their Gárda Síochána service, and had reached the point on the scale to which that combined service would have brought them. However, that is only a small part of the pension that would have been payable in a great many cases. There are certain other cases of resigned and dismissed R.I.C. still under consideration. Under sub-head (k) a sum of £100 has been inserted. That is really a token figure. The only charge at present borne is one annual allowance granted under Section 4 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923. As I have already indicated, on the amalgamation of the D.M.P. and the Gárda Síochána, opportunity was taken to amalgamate the pension charges for both these forces under sub-heads (I) and (II) of the Estimate. A pensions order was framed in the past year, providing for the superannuation of members of the Gárda Síochána, but naturally the bulk of the provision taken under these two sub-heads (I) and (II) is in respect of members of the former D.M.P. force. The latest figures we have show that up to the present 568 members of the late D.M.P. force have received awards of pensions under Article X of the Treaty. They include one Chief Commissioner and one Assistant Commissioner who were discharged. The remainder were inspectors, station sergeants, sergeants and constables, who retired in consequence of the change of Government. The retirements were eleven inspectors, twenty-six station sergeants, ninety-five sergeants, and 434 constables. Sub-head (m) represents the payment under the liability that was undertaken in the Treaty. It has been arranged that the Saorstát liability in respect of the ordinary and disbandment pensions of the R.I.C., excluding persons recruited in Great Britain during the two years preceding the Treaty, that is the Black-and-Tans for whom we have no responsibility, is on the assumption that seventy-five per cent. relate to Saorstát Eireann and the remaining twenty-five per cent. to the other part of Ireland. The present amount of these pensions and disbandment allowances is approximately £1,690,000. Seventy-five per cent. of that is £1,267,500, but that, of course, is liable to reduction by the re-employment and deaths of disbanded members, and it is estimated that one million and a quarter will suffice to cover the amount required for the current financial year.

I want a brief explanation from the Minister as to when he proposes to deal with the outstanding cases for which a provision of £70,000 is made in this year's Estimate. I have had seven or eight cases from my own constituency in hands for the last three years. In three cases decisions have been given by the Minister; in the other four decisions have been held over, and I submit that in all fairness three years is long enough to give either the Minister or the officials of his Department to deal with a few cases of that kind. If the cases were looked up it would only take about ten minutes for the Minister to give some ruling and to make a decision one way or the other. The Minister did give an assurance some time ago that all those outstanding cases would, as far as he was concerned, be settled one way or the other by the 30th April. Now he states that there are eighty-five cases confined to the Gárda Síochána. I dare say that there are not any great grounds for complaint in these cases, but he says that there are still a number of other cases under consideration, and I would like to know how long it will take him to come to a final decision, seeing that he has been three years considering these few applications still outstanding. There is, I suggest, something radically wrong, or somebody behind the scenes holding up the Minister from giving proper consideration to these cases. I have been wondering whether or not they were being held up so that in the end a sufficient amount of political influence would be brought to bear on the Minister to give either a favourable or unfavourable decision in the cases still outstanding.

There is one type of case which I think constitutes a grievance. It only concerns a few people who have served the State very well when the State was in a difficulty, and they have not been very fairly dealt with. I will quote one case as an example. A man held a position as inspector in the Intelligence Department in Oriel House. He held a good position, but he thought he would serve the country better by joining the Army voluntarily. He joined the Army, and was eventually disbanded, like all the other good people who were disbanded in the general demobilisation of March, 1924, although they were the men who had done most for the country, and eventually the Minister decided that he should receive a pension under Section 5 of the Superannuation Act. The Minister, in his discretion, I think very unwisely used, when paying the arrears of the pension, deducted from this man the difference between the pay he received in the Army and the pension he was entitled to during his service in the Army. That was most unfair, as the man was not aware that it would be done, and no regulation was issued at the time he joined the Army to show that he would be dealt with in that way.

That is only one of the cases of men who volunteered to serve the State, and who served it well when the State was fighting for its very existence. I put that case to the Minister in order to bring under his notice a matter which I believe has already been brought under his personal notice, to show the injustice of the treatment meted out to individuals, and to express the hope that he will reconsider the matter in the light of the circumstances that this man had to face. The man, while acting as an inspector in Oriel House, was, by a lucky accident, saved from being killed. Certain individuals, who were termed Irregulars or Republicans, actually went into Oriel House one night and fired at him while he was at his desk. He escaped by accident and by good luck, and he has received that treatment from the Minister after he served in the Army. I draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to this case, which, I believe, is one of glaring injustice and is certainly not a case that a man with a good record in pre-Truce days would look upon in an unfavourable light. I put this to the Minister as one example of a few cases that have been dealt with in that way that should be reconsidered, and also to learn from him definitely as to when these few remaining cases that have been under consideration for three years will eventually be decided, one way or the other.

I have not had time to deal with any cases for some weeks back. Up to that I spent, every week, a considerable amount of time in examining those cases. I can assure the Deputy that this is a sort of Act that requires more time from a Minister than most Acts. There are a great number of individual cases that present peculiar features and the file must be read by the Minister. It has thrown more work on me personally than Acts which would involve very much greater expenditure. There are peculiar difficulties in very many cases. For instance there are the medical gratuity cases where people persuaded the British authorities that they were medically unfit to serve, where they were discharged as medically unfit, and received gratuities of two or three hundred pounds. I was not inclined to take too rigid a view and say that they have resigned on ground of ill health that patriotic motives therefore had nothing to do with it and that no pensions would be granted. I was aware that there were cases where men who for patriotic reasons wanted to be out of the R.I.C. who did not want to draw attention to themselves on the part of the Black-and-Tans or others. It is a moot point whether those people were discharged or dismissed or whether they come under the Act at all even apart from any consideration that might be given to them. That is a matter that still is under consideration and certainly I feel that, once there was an actual doctor's certificate accepted by the British, and perhaps two or three hundred pounds paid on the strength of it, because the person was unfit for further service, we must have something to counter that, some very definite evidence of patriotic motives.

Is the Minister aware that Deputy O'Connor who was Chairman of the Committee that inquired into these cases said that every case was carefully considered and that a fair decision was arrived at? Is he repudiating that?

No, but unfortunately some of those who gave past service to the country, to whom Deputy Davin referred, and who are demobilised, were appointed on that committee, and never attended. The committee had not assistance from the Army side that it might have, or that it ought to have had. Even apart from that, times are quieter and a good deal of information can be got now that could not be easily got at that time. There are cases in which it is possible without casting any reflection on the competence of the Committee to feel satisfied that their judgment ought to be reversed. Then there is this matter really of a legal character, and perhaps we might decide against the people right off if we wanted to rely on technical grounds. That is the question of whether people who succeeded in retiring on gratuities on grounds of ill-health come within the Act at all. These things do require a good deal of examination. There are very few cases outstanding, except those Gárda Síochána ones, which I think the Deputy himself acknowledges are not urgent cases. The men are in full-time employment. Their pension will be fixed. They will be paid from the beginning. They will get all their money, and there is not any particular hurry about them. Of the remaining cases, except the medical gratuity cases, very few remain, and I would say that the medical gratuity people should regard themselves as lucky, indeed, if they are granted pensions, because certainly, on the first view, the case would go against them. If competent doctors have certified that people were unfit to serve, it is difficult, in spite of any evidence that may be submitted, to go behind that certificate and to say we are satisfied it was not ill-health, but patriotic motives.

What about payment of a pension stopped on account of pay received while serving in the Army?

That is a case I looked into myself, and of which I did not examine the details. I do not think there was any unfairness there. He was treated as other people, entitled to a pension and pay from the State, were. The pay he was actually receiving in the Army was taken into account. Other people in the Army were treated in the same way, and his case was not an isolated case. He might afterwards feel, he should never have gone into the Army, but the amount of loss to him was not great, and in any case it was parallel to the treatment other people received.

I would like the Minister to give us some idea as to the kind of evidence required as to the motives through which those men resigned. I have a case in point of a man who resigned in 1918 whose claim to a pension was turned down——

That was a very quiet period.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of the local Sinn Fein Club has said he approached this man and his wife with the object of getting him to resign. The local priest has written and said that he knows that this man, after resigning from the R.I.C., gave useful service in the National movement, and also several of the local volunteer officers vouched for the fact.

What was his service?

I think he had ten or fifteen years' service. I want to put it to the Minister that statements so strong as those should certainly be accepted as proof of the man's motives in resigning from the R.I.C.

I was Chairman of that Committee of Inquiry about which the Deputy has spoken. I would be greatly surprised if any case, as definitely proved as the Deputy stated, was rejected. Any case of that nature in which we got proof that a member of a local Sinn Fein club, or anybody connected with the local Volunteers or a national organisation approached a member of the R.I.C. with a view to his resignation and got him to resign, was not turned down as long as evidence to that effect was proved.

I do not know whether all the information I have spoken of was adduced before the Committee of Inquiry of which Deputy O'Connor was chairman. It may have been subsequent to the meeting of the Committee or to the decision of the Minister which, in a large number of cases, was quite different from that of the Committee.

Not many.

This man may not have furnished all the information when the case was first heard, but he did so afterwards. I am informed that this information was submitted.

Perhaps it may be information for Deputy O'Connor to know that the Minister has turned down about 100 cases which were passed by the Committee.

We have turned down a certain number.

How many?

I do not know at the moment. Even with all the care we took, I know that men have got through who should not have got through. An incident happened in my office seven or eight months ago which proved that amply. A certain high military officer came in to talk about R.I.C. cases and mentioned about a particular man who got a pension. He gave us information that showed absolutely without doubt that that particular person should not have got a pension. The Attorney-General advised us that the pension could not be withdrawn unless the Pensions Act was amended, but we do not intend to amend it for one or two cases. That claim was examined by the Committee in the light of the actual evidence in my Department, but the evidence that would enable us to turn the claim down afterwards came in quite accidentally. There is no doubt that a great number of these cases are extremely doubtful. A large number of men got out, like the man to whom I have just referred, simply through terror.

Does that include men who resigned during the conscription period?

No, we have treated those with special favour.

By denying them pensions.

No, by giving them pensions. We have allowed pensions to one or two persons who resigned during the conscription period, although their service was only three years or three years and a half. In all other cases, no pension was given to a man with less than four years' service. As regards the particular case to which Deputy Morrissey referred, I know nothing about it at the moment. If a man did not resign during the conscription period, and resigned only when the national appeal was being made, we would view that case with considerable suspicion, and we would require more proof than we would require in the case of someone who resigned during the conscription period or about the time of the Listowel incident. My opinion is that of the people who got pensions a substantial number are frauds, but we could not be so strict as to eliminate the possibility of fraud without doing injustice to people who really resigned out of patriotic motives. The whole case is extremely difficult. You have men who come and give all sorts of reasons for resigning. People who succeeded in getting R.I.C. doctors' certificates that they were unfit to serve at the time, now state that they were perfectly fit and that the reason they put up these certificates was that they thought it as well to get a few hundred pounds out of the British Government. My feeling is that these people would put up any sort of case to us and would not stop merely because they would have to assert a falsehood or make a false affidavit. People who resigned clearly through patriotic motives, but who did not try any of these dodges and who associated themselves actively with the I.R.A. or with the Sinn Féin movement afterwards, have been dealt with fairly; but it is very hard to deal with cases where there is conflicting testimony given at different periods by the applicants themselves. I think about fifty or sixty cases was the number recommended by the Committee in which we have not so far agreed with the Committee's award or definitely refused pensions.

Does that include one man who resigned during the conscription period, and went out openly afterwards to assist the Sinn Féin movement?

I cannot say.

I think you led the House to think otherwise.

I said we are more lenient in exacting proof in the cases of resignations during the conscription period than in the period before or subsequent to that.

How do you expect the House to believe you were lenient to these men, when, as a matter of fact, you turn down one of the three men who resigned during the conscription period who organised the police movement, and who openly assisted you afterwards in the Sinn Fein struggle?

I do not know whether the Deputy is referring to a man who was afterwards an Irregular?

No, he was not an Irregular.

Well, I do not know the case.

You had it under consideration.

I do not remember it.

Speaking on the general vote, this is a very large vote for superannuation, and while I recognise that it is due to the special retirements —and, incidentally, I might say that I personally recognise that the Government could not have done otherwise than to retire various bodies under the changed circumstances—still the amount we have to pay for pensions is a very serious matter when taken in connection with the whole of the revenue we are able to raise under taxation. On previous occasions, when this question of pensions came up, I think the Minister for Justice indicated that Civil Service pensions were all on a contributory basis. I would like the Minister to make that point clear. In these accounts there is nothing shown in the way of any contribution towards the pensionable rights of civil servants, or under these various heads.

Civil Service pensions are not on a contributory basis.

That means that on previous occasions the Minister for Justice was wrong, or misinformed, for, according to my recollection, certainly on one or two occasions, he mentioned a sum of 2½ per cent. of salaries as being the provision in connection with pensions.

There was a question at one time in connection with the Civic Guard, and before the Civic Guard pay had been reduced, of making a deduction in their case of 2½ per cent., but the value of the pensions of the civil servants is much beyond that. It is reckoned ordinarily as being equivalent to 12½ per cent. of the salary. For instance, in a certain case the Tailteann Games Committee wished to have the services of a certain civil servant for a period of a couple of months to do work in connection with the games. Not only had the Committee to pay the civil servant his salary but they had actually to pay into the Exchequer an amount equivalent to 12½ per cent. of that salary as a contribution towards his pension. When we borrowed civil servants from the British Government the value of their pensions was reckoned on the same basis, as being equivalent to 12½ per cent. of the salary.

That, of course, raises a big issue which possibly it may not be in order to deal with to-day. It puts a different aspect on the matter as put by the Minister for Justice regarding the merits or otherwise of pensions to be granted in connection with the whole administration. I think I will leave it at that until some other opportunity may arise to take it up again, as to whether the value of the pension is in any way taken into consideration in regard to the scale of salaries in the various Departments, and as to whether some provision should not be made from year to year regarding these pensions. They come terribly heavy at present owing to the enormous numbers of retirements that have taken place. They constitute a very serious charge on the finances of the State. Of course it is not very much use saying that, because we cannot get out of it, but I would like the Government to recognise that it has a very important bearing on the general policy of these matters, that a big charge like this should come on without any provision having been made towards meeting it.

Motion put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 6.40 p.m. Resumed at 7.15 p.m.,AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.
Top
Share