Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 14

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

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,200,326 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, 1927, chun Aois-liúntaisí, Cúiteamh, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí Truagha agus Breise fé Reachtanna iolardha; Cúiteamh fé Airtiogal 10 de Chonnra an 6adh Mí na Nodlag, 1921; Liúntaisí Truagha, Aiscí agus Pinsin Bhreise a doonadh ag an Aire Airgid; Tuarastal an Dochtúra Réitigh; agus Iocaíochtanna iolardha i dtaobh Pinsean a íocann an Rialtas Briotáineach fé láthair.

That a sum not exceeding £1,200,326 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, 1927, 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 Minister for Finance, the salary of the Medical Referee; and sundry repayments in respect of pensions at present paid by the British Government.

Deputies will notice that there is an increase of £43,499 shown in this Estimate. This increase arises from two causes. There is a certain increase in the ordinary superannuation allowances; that is, superannuation allowances paid to people who retired in the ordinary course through the setting up of the Saorstát. There is an estimated increase in compensation allowances under Article X. of the Treaty. If the Wigg and Cochrane case is disposed of at an early date there will be a considerable number of civil servants who will go out under the Treaty. Their cases have been held up since proceedings were started in the Wigg and Cochrane case.

There is another increase in sub-head M—Re-payments to the British Government in respect of civil pensions. That increase arises in this way:—Up to the present we have not been paying the full British demand in respect of inland revenue pensions, and Customs and Excise pensions. The British Government made a demand which was based on a calculation arrived at in this way:—They took the salaries, wages and overtime of the staff engaged on Saorstát Revenue and Customs and Excise work in the period, 1st April to 5th December, 1922, and they took the salaries, wages and overtime of the entire Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise staff, and applied that fraction to the total pension charge in respect of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise as at 6th December, 1922. We did not accept that calculation as being correct, and so far, we have paid only 80 per cent. of the British claim. We have not yet accepted the calculation they made as being entirely accurate, but we are clear that there is no justification for keeping anything like 20 per cent. of the demand back. We are making provision this year for a sum of £37,600 in respect of arrears arising through the keeping back of 20 per cent. of the British claim. It is hoped that during the present year— very shortly—some definite agreement will be reached with the British Government as to the figure which is properly chargeable against us.

Mr. ESMONDE

I think there was an amendment on the Order Paper proposing the reduction of this sum. It was standing in the name of Deputy Cooper, but apparently it has been withdrawn. I would like to point out it is a logical conclusion of the advocates of cutting down the Civil Service that this Vote should be substantially increased; any substantial reduction in the Civil Service means a corresponding increase in the Vote. Perhaps the Minister will give us some definite figure as to the exact financial saving to the State by the retirements under the Treaty. I have in mind the percentage saved through the retirements of civil servants under Article X. If a certain number of civil servants were retired, and were entitled to these pensions, what would be the percentage of gain to the State irrespective of the loss of work which those civil servants might have been engaged in?

Any large reduction of the present civil administration would involve a correspondingly large increase in this Vote. On several occasions I have urged on the Minister the advisability of exploring all the possibilities of funding this substantial annual sum, particularly with regard to the R.I.C. pensions. I notice that the R.I.C. pensions are being increased; at least the actual sum we are asked to vote is larger than last year. That seems to be a matter that requires some explanation. There is a footnote in the Estimates in which it is mentioned that the provision includes a contribution towards British administration expenses estimated at £13,000 in connection with the pensions of the ex-R.I.C. men. If we have to pay this large sum I think we should have more effective control over the disbursement of this money.

I think that the Auditor-General should have more complete and more effective powers in auditing the accounts of the R.I.C. This is a very large sum which the taxpayers of this country will have to pay for many years to come—until the last surviving member of the R.I.C. dies. It will be a decreasing sum, I presume. I think that steps should be taken to see whether during these years the Minister cannot arrive at some satisfactory system of funding this commitment— at any rate that more effective measures should be taken to see that we have complete control and a complete check over the individual payments in connection with pensions to the R.I.C.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that it would be worth while if Deputies in looking at this Estimate would take into account this item in considering the national indebtedness. I think it would be quite fair and reasonable if this particular Vote at any rate and perhaps one or two others were considered as equivalent to interest on war debt. If we were to take that view it would perhaps put us into a better understanding of the relative position of this country with other countries. I want to raise a question under sub-head L. Perhaps it is not strictly in order just now, but I think it might be dealt with now as it is certainly not a contentious matter and it is one as to which I gave notice to the Minister. It is with regard to the pensioners from the D.M.P. I think that matter is very important. It certainly is very important to the pensioners themselves that they should understand exactly what the position is with regard to their pensions. The case is somewhat complicated, and I will try to make it clear. The reference is to pensioners of the D.M.P. who retired prior to 1st April, 1919. It may be asked how that date has been fixed. I do not know how the date has been fixed upon, but it is a very important date indeed to the pensioners who happened to have retired from the D.M.P. before April, 1919.

It appears that by some arrangement the Saorstát or the Provisional Government made with the British Government under the Transfer of Functions Order that there was a transfer to the Provisional Government of the D.M.P.. and the administration and control of that force. Now that is understood. The arrangements subsequent to the Treaty led to the decision to disband the R.I.C., but the D.M.P. were taken over and continued under the auspices of the Provisional Government and ultimately of the Saorstát Government. It appears that under this Transfer of Functions Order the date was fixed as 1st April, 1919, I think. Whether the Order actually contains that date I am not sure, but it was arising out of the Transfer of Functions Order of April, 1922, that the position of the D.M.P. pensioners who retired prior to 1st April, 1919, came to be so very much worsened as compared with those pensioners of the British Government who retired afterwards or the pensioners of other services who retired prior to 1919. I speak of a difference in pecuniary condition and I will illustrate that. It appears that if, let us say, an inspector of the D.M.P. retired at any date up to 31st March, 1919, he would have a pension of £106 13s. 4d. If he were in a position to take advantage of, or to get any benefit from, the Increase of Pensions Act, 1920, he would have a certain addition to that, perhaps up to £50. But if he retired since 1st April, 1919, instead of £106, plus about £50, his pension would be about £240. In the case of a constable who retired prior to 1919, the pension was £52, with some addition under the 1920 Increase of Pensions Act—perhaps £20 or £30; but if he retired since 1st April, 1919, it would be £164 13s. 4d. If he had the good fortune to be a member of the R.I.C., which was disbanded, instead of a member of the D.M.P., which was transferred, his pension would be very much greater than it is if he retired prior to 1st April, 1919. A sergeant of the R.I.C. of 18 years' service who retired under the Treaty would have 12 years added and would receive £195 per annum. A sergeant of the D.M.P. who retired prior to April, 1919, would receive £65 per annum, plus about 50 per cent. under the Increase of Pensions Act, 1920.

The grievance that these men suffer under is that they have been, by the fact of their transfer, debarred from receiving the benefit of the Increase of Pensions Act, 1924, passed by the British Parliament and affecting pensioners of all kinds. R.I.C., prison warders, postal employees and other pre-war British pensioners were all given the benefit of this Increase of Pensions Act, 1924, although those services were transferred to the Saorstát Government, except the R.I.C., just in the same way as the D.M.P. were transferred. The R.I.C. was disbanded. In the case of prison warders, postal employees and others, the service was in fact transferred, but the responsibility for the pensions appears to have been retained by the British Government. I am not able to understand, and it does not seem to have been explained to anybody, why the responsibility for the D.M.P. pensions should have been transferred to the Saorstát Government, and the scale of pension determined by the decisions of the Saorstát Government, even though the pensions were in regard to services rendered to the British Government.

The British Government appears to have denied any responsibility for these men. My desire is to find out what is the position of the Saorstát Government towards them. Are we to take it that nobody is responsible for them, or at least that both parties are shirking the responsibility and trying to shift it over to the other? So far as the people of the Saorstát are concerned, I think they had no thought of differentiating so strongly and decisively against the D.M.P. as against the R.I.C. I do not think the public opinion of the Saorstát was so decidedly averse from the D.M.P., or so decisively favourable to the R.I.C., as to justify this difference of treatment of pensioners who retired during the British régime prior to April, 1919. It certainly is a very remarkable fact that men who retired in May, or even April, 1919, should be receiving round and about three times the pension of their fellow police who happened to retire one month earlier. It is a discrimination which requires justification, and I am afraid it will be very hard to justify it in any court of equity.

What I would like to know is—who is responsible for the payment of those pensions? If the Saorstát Government are responsible, why should they be responsible for the payment of D.M.P. pensions and not for the payment of R.I.C. pensions? What is the reason for the discrimination against the D.M.P. pensioner? Perhaps the Minister can throw some light upon this question and justify, if possible, his attitude, or, if not to justify it, explain why the case cannot be met as between the British and the Saorstát Government, having regard to fair treatment and equity for these men of the old D.M.P.

Mr. NORTON

I want to take this opportunity of asking the Minister whether he has any views on the question of acceding to the request of persons who retired under Article X. of the Treaty for reinstatement. If he has any views on the matter, will he indicate on what conditions he will be prepared to reinstate those people? I am just putting the question with a view to eliciting some information on the point.

Mr. BLYTHE

Deputy Esmonde asks if a number of persons were to retire under the Treaty what would be the saving to the State, if we assume that the work which they had been doing would not be done unless other staffs were got. I could not give the figures, as a calculation will have to be made, but I think it might be roughly accurate to say that the cost of the pensions would be something like half the cost of the salaries. I do not think it would be possible, or financially desirable, to attempt to fund the pension charges. They will go on for a very long period, especially in respect of the disbanded R.I.C., who are comparatively young men, and I do not think that any saving in actual expenditure could be effected by borrowing for this purpose. So far as control is concerned, we have so far accepted the certificate of the British Comptroller and Auditor-General provisionally. We have undoubtedly the right, and we have made it clear to the British Government, that we would insist on an examination of the records in connection with R.I.C. pensions, of which we pay our share. If, when a check examination does take place at any time, any discrepancy were to be disclosed, we would, of course, have a complete examination made and would withhold any amounts which we might have overpaid. So far the matter has not been examined on our behalf, but it will be, and the Saorstát Exchequer will not be prejudiced by the payments which we are making on the certificate of the British.

Deputy Johnson referred to what I think he described as the discrimination against the D.M.P. The difference in treatment between the D.M.P. the R.I.C. and the Post Office pensioners arises in this way. The D.M.P. was purely a service which operated in the Free State area. Secondly, under the Transfer of Functions Order the entire service, the personnel of the service and all the pensioners of the service came over to us. We were thus responsible not only for the payment of the existing personnel, but for the payment of the entire pensions of the retired personnel. Take the R.I.C. Apart altogether from the question of disbandment, even suppose there were no disbandment the force would have to be schemed and the existing personnel would have to be allocated to Northern Ireland and the Saorstát. All pensioners would not have been schemed, but would have remained payable by the British Government, which would recover portion from us and portion from Northern Ireland.

Take the Post Office employees. The existing personnel remained here, but the pensioners who might have served part of their time in Northern Ireland or in England and part of their time here have remained British pensioners, but we recoup the British Government. In the case of the R.I.C. the position is: we pay 75 per cent. of the pensions. Northern Ireland pays 25 per cent. of the pensions, that being the proportion in which the men were stationed in the Saorstát area and in the Northern area. When the British passed their Increase of Pensions Act, 1924, we had no responsibility for it. They gave the benefit of that to, say, Post Office pensioners, but we did not pay the increase. We continued to pay the amount to the British Government in respect to those pensions that we were paying before that Act was passed. That is the position we took in regard to the Increase of Pensions Act, 1924, so far as it applies to pensioners for whom we had any responsibility, so that that was an act of generosity on the part of the British Government. They could pay if they liked, but that was nothing to us. We did not pay. Therefore, while the British Government is paying more to those pensioners we are paying no more. The D.M.P. being purely a local service, and the pensioners of that service being transferred to us completely in the same way as the serving personnel, if we were to do anything in respect of their pensions we would have to pay the cost, a cost which we were not paying in respect to other pensions. So the position is that while the British Government took certain steps in respect of all other pensioners they did not, and I think it would perhaps have been difficult for them, take those steps with respect to the D.M.P., but our attitude in regard to all pensioners has been the same—that is, they had already, in so far as they were pre-war pensioners, got the benefit of the Act of 1920 before the Free State came into operation, and we are paying any additional sums which would be paid to pensioners arising from the Act of 1920, but we are paying nothing in respect of any additional sums arising out of the Act of 1924.

Mr. JOHNSON

How would the Minister arrive at April 1st, 1919?

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not clear on that point. I think there was a revision of the police pensions. I had better leave it over, because I am uncertain of it. I have not considered the question raised by Deputy Norton, of people who retired under Article 10 applying for reinstatement. I think there would be difficulties in the case of any person who so retired. First, the particular position held might be filled, it might be difficult to find work in the office without causing an upset which would be undesirable for people of the particular grade to which they belonged. In general, as retirements under Article 10 are still possible, I would not like to encourage anyone to hope that if they went out they would get employment from this Government again in case they wanted it.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister's statement with regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners gives a certain amount of satisfaction to myself inasmuch as it explains that the increase of pensions which was being paid to the Royal Irish Constabulary and other British pensioners does not fall upon the Free State Exchequer, but it raises another question which I venture to put to the Minister. Such of these men as are citizens of the Saorstát have a claim for the protection and the support of the Free State Government in dealing with the Government of another country, and it seems to me that the services which these men rendered, and the pensions which they received on account of those services, were all in regard to services of the British Government in Ireland, and that there should be no distinction between one class of pensioner, especially in the case of a police pensioner, or another class of pensioner, when they were so definitely and clearly Government services. If this were merely a local municipal service one could see some point in the objection, but it was not a local service. It was a service administered by the central authority for which the Chief Secretary was responsible. Consequently I put it to the Minister that in dealing with the reasonable and just claims of citizens of the Saorstát in respect to the liability of the British Government to those men that his intervention should be made with the British Government on behalf of the pensioners who are being, as I said, unfairly discriminated against.

I do not know whether the Minister has taken up this matter officially. I rather gathered from the answer he gave a little time ago that he thought it was not a matter for him to take action about and that it was for the pensioners, themselves, to make any representation direct to the British Government. I think that that is a shirking of responsibility. It is quite usual for the Government of a country, when its nationals are not able to get a satisfactory answer on a fair and just claim, to take the matter up on behalf of its nationals with the country against whom the claim is made. I put that case to the Minister: that it is a responsibility that should not be thrown back upon the pensioner citizen. If it is a matter to be pressed against the Government of another country it is surely the responsibility of our Government to assist those pensioners in putting their claims forward.

This is not a mere commercial debt. It is not a case that can be paralleled by an ordinary trading transaction. These were men who were servants to the State which was in command here up to 1921, and their claim is one, I think, that ought to be backed up, and supported by the official authority now in this country. I would press upon the Minister that there is a fair and just case to be put forward on behalf of these men. If they are to be treated as not worthy of the same kind of consideration as other British public servants were, in respect of pensions— men who gave service prior to 1919— then I am afraid that the case, in equity, is not receiving the attention it ought to receive.

I would press upon the Minister that he ought to use such influence as he can in putting the case forward on behalf of these men which I have tried, inadequately, to put before the House today.

Mr. BLYTHE

It does seem to me that the D.M.P. pensioners have as good a claim against the British Government for an increase in pensions as those who got it. But the Deputy will know that up to comparatively recently there have been many disputes and negotiations between the British Government and the Saorstát Government with regard to financial matters. If there was any claim that could be pressed through any other sources than through Government sources it probably would be advantageous that it should be so pressed; because any pressure from us on the British Government to make payments could, perhaps, be reported upon. It is a matter that I promise the Deputies I will look into further, but I would not like to say any more than that.

Mr. JOHNSON

With reference to another matter, would the Minister be able to make any statement regarding claims or requests put forward, from time to time, on behalf of individuals who are receiving pensions, for commutation in particular cases?

Mr. BLYTHE

In general we have been against commutation. We have to borrow. Although the position in regard to borrowing has improved, although our loan is remaining steadily up, and there is every prospect that we shall be able to borrow what we require for all Government purposes on reasonable terms, the view taken, when the matter was considered a year or two ago, was that we ought not to go on the market when there is no advantage to us to go. There are certain other objections to commutation. We were particularly alive to that in the case of army service pensions. We definitely decided there should be no commutation there, because we believed that in many cases the result of commutation would be that the individual probably would lose the money he got and would then be somewhat of a problem. That is the general objection to commutation. There is another objection to it. I remember one particular case of a resident magistrate who pressed very hard for commutation. We refused it. If he had got commutation I think it would have meant five or six thousand pounds. He died in about a month, and we would have sustained a fairly substantial loss if we had agreed to communtation. Generally the main argument seems to be against it.

Vote put and agreed to.