Certain amendments have been put down on the Order Paper which are not in order, and I have circulated to the House amendments which I will propose in order to meet, in some part, points which have been raised in the amendments which have been circulated. I propose with the permission of the House that they should be taken to-day.
In Committee on Finance. - Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill, 1938—Committee Stage.
I did not catch what the Minister said.
Deputy O'Higgins is aware that the Chair purposes to rule all his amendments out of order as involving an increase of cost. The Deputy is, I believe, satisfied that they do involve an increase. The Minister states that he has amendments meeting many of the points raised. He has submitted the amendments now, and they will be taken to-day if the House has no objection.
Certainly.
I dare say it is not proposed to take the remaining stages to-day.
I understand not. Deputies might discard the printed amendment sheet. All these amendments may be taken as out of order without any further ruling. The amendments to be dealt with are on the typescript sheet.
Question—"That Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment a:—
Before Section 7 to insert the following new section:—
(1) Whether a member of the Oireachtas who is the holder of an office mentioned in this Part of this Act gives notice in writing to the Minister for Finance that he desires to draw so much only of the salary attached to that office as is equal to the exempted part, there shall be paid, in respect of such salary, to such person a sum equal to the exempted part only.
(2) In this section the expression "the exempted part" when used in relation to a salary means so much of such salary as is, by virtue of subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938 (No. — of 1938), exempt from income-tax (including surtax).— (Aire Airgeadais.)
This amendment is designed to permit a member of the Oireachtas who is the holder of an office mentioned in Part II of the Act to give notice in writing to the Minister for Finance that he desires to draw so much only of his salary attached to that office as is equal to the exempted part and to permit the Minister for Finance to pay to such person in respect of such salary a sum equal to the exempted part only.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
I move amendment b:—
At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section—
(5) A Ministerial pension shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924 (No. 48 of 1924), or sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934 (No. 43 of 1934), be deemed not to be a pension or allowance payable out of public moneys.
In paragraph 78, page 31, of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Ministerial and other Salaries, a recommendation is made, and the purpose of this amendment is to give effect to that recommendation. The purport of the recommendation is that the committee considered that the Ministerial pension should not be suspended or abated in respect of the following special types of payment from public funds:—(1) A Parliamentary allowance as Deputy or Senator, or (2) an allowance as Leader of the Opposition, or (3) a pension or allowance payable under the Military Service Pensions Acts, or the Army Pensions Acts in respect of services rendered, or wounds or disabilities suffered, prior to 30th September, 1923. I am advised that the Bill, as drafted, would not make the recommendation of the committee effective, and this amendment has been introduced to give effect to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 1b:—
Before Section 14 to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a person who was Attorney-General of Saorstát Eireann ceased, in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 (No. 16 of 1924), to hold that office and his qualifying service is on the date of the passing of this Act three years or more, such person shall become entitled on the date of the passing of this Act to a gratuity of an amount equal to one-half of the salary attached to that office at the date of such cesser.
(2) Where a person who was Attorney-General retires from that office and his qualifying service on the date of such retirement is three years or more, such person shall, unless he has been previously paid a gratuity under sub-section (1) of this section or this sub-section, become entitled on the date of such retirement to a gratuity of an amount equal to one-half of the salary attached to that office at the date of such retirement.
(3) For the purpose of this section—
(a) the qualifying service of a person shall be the sum of each period during which such person held the office of Attorney-General of Saorstát Eireann or the office of Attorney-General, and
(b) the number of years of qualifying service of a person shall be taken to be the result obtained by dividing the number of days of his qualifying service by the number 365, any fraction over being disregarded.
(4) No gratuity under sub-section (2) of this section shall be payable to a person if, on his retirement from the office of Attorney-General—
(a) he is appointed to any whole-time office the remuneration of which exceeds £1,000 per annum and either is charged on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof or is payable directly out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or
(b) he is appointed on the nomination of the Government or a Minister of State to any office the remuneration of which exceeds £1,000 per annum.
(5) Where any gratuity under sub-section (2) of this section is paid to a person and such person is within 12 months after his retirement from the office of Attorney-General appointed to any such office as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of the next preceding sub-section, such person shall pay to the Minister for Finance a sum equal to the amount of that gratuity.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, I pointed out that the Government had not been able to accept the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry in so far as the recommendations related to the office of Attorney-General. In the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, the attention of the Government was drawn to the fact that the Attorney-General was in rather a different position even to that of a Minister, that while it was quite true that he had not wholly severed his associations with his profession, and while he did in fact continue to practise that profession during his term of office, nevertheless the practice was limited and circumscribed to purely Governmental business, and that, in the proper discharge of his duty as Attorney-General he, like the Ministers, had to interrupt completely his former professional connections. We have considered the position, and the Government is of opinion that there is something to be said for that point of view, and that, accordingly, if a person for any reason retires from the office of Attorney-General having served three years in that position, he ought to be given an opportunity to try to make good some of the professional loss which he, undoubtedly, sustained by reason of the fact that, as I have said, he had to sever what was his purely personal and private professional connection. In pursuance of that, the Government have put down this amendment which would give to any person who has held the office of Attorney-General for three years and who retires from that office and does not, in the ensuing 12 months after his retirement, receive an appointment to any whole-time office the remuneration of which exceeds £1,000 per annum and either is charged on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof or is payable directly out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or is appointed on the nomination of the Government or a Minister of State to any office the remuneration of which exceeds £1,000 per annum—that, in the case of an Attorney-General who does not receive an appointment of the nature specified and prescribed in this amendment, he should be given a gratuity of one-half of the salary he held on retirement from office. That, I think, is as far as the Government finds itself, in the circumstances, able to go to meet the point of view that was advocated here.
I am pleased with the fact that some recognition has been given to the fact that the Attorney-General, to a greater or lesser extent, has lost contact with his business, and that, necessarily, when he goes back to ordinary life, he finds himself in the position that it takes a number of years at least before he gets back to anything like the professional position he was in before he took office as Attorney-General. I accept the fact that provision is made here for that, although it is not exactly making the Attorney-General equivalent to a Minister in the pensionable capacity; but it is doing something to meet the case. In connection with this particular section, however, I had an amendment down— which was ruled out—to meet a different type of case. Generally speaking, in this Bill, two years of Ministerial service is equal to three years of service as a Parliamentary Secretary, and my amendment aimed at giving to the ex-Minister a right, if he so desired, to have his pensionable service converted into three years at the lower scale of pension. Roughly, the proportion is two to three. The pension rates proposed for Parliamentary Secretary and Minister indicate that the value placed on two years as a Minister is equal to that of three years as Parliamentary Secretary, and I wanted to leave, if possible, to the individual the right to have his service calculated according to either measure. I think this is the appropriate part of the Bill to raise that point, and that, if it were to be met, it should be met there, before Section 14. Anyway, I am satisfied to take the opportunity to raise the matter, so that it can be considered by the Minister between this and the Report Stage.
This proposal appears to be in conflict with a certain part of the speech made by the Minister for Finance on the Second Reading of the Bill. The whole idea of this Bill is to make some reasonable provision, and as generous a provision as possible, for persons who can prove that they suffered financial disadvantages during the period covered by the Bill. In his Second Reading speech, I think, the Minister took the view that an ex-Attorney-General was not likely to be looked upon as a sufferer during his period of office. However, I do not know what prompted the Minister for Finance to change his view and introduce a new section, but I should like to hear from him how many people are likely to benefit under the new section now proposed, and what is the total estimated cost of the section.
Before the Minister deals with the points raised by Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Davin, I think this is the appropriate place to mention again a matter which I raised on the Second Stage of this Bill. It is here proposed to bring in the Attorney-General. Now, I mentioned a small class of persons, that is those members of Parliament who represented Nationalist constituencies in the British House of Commons for years, for no reward of any kind, many of whom ruined their professional careers, many of whom, to my personal knowledge, were hungry in London when they were doing their work. They were hungry because they had to depend upon what subscriptions were collected in America and Australia and in this country. That was the allowance they had to live on. That was their only source of income. Having borne the burden and heat of the day their Parties were rejected in 1918, and they are now old men. Some of them are destitute. I have pointed out to the House that they constitute an inevitably diminishing charge. They are a class to which no additions can conceivably be made in the future. They have certainly done as much for the establishment of the sovereignty and independence of this country as anybody else. They have certainly given as disinterested service to this country as anybody else. They never asked for anything; they have not authorised me to ask for anything, and if I asked them for permission to speak on their behalf I do not think they would authorise me to ask for it, because they were brought up in the old school, in which the fathers of all of us were brought up. When Ireland had nothing you served her for nothing, and you never expected a reward. Such reward as you got was the removal of the evils of which you set out to relieve this country. As you remedied the grievances of the people, that was the reward you were working for, and that was all the reward you got.
I believe those men would be quite prepared to face destitution if the country were still engaged in the struggle for independence, and still required all her resources to finance it. But that is no longer the case. We have got our own Parliament. We have got our own independence. We have got our own opportunity to do with the resources of this country what we will, largely as a result of their efforts. I want to ask this House categorically now, when provision is being made for everybody else, is that dwindling body of men to be entirely forgotten? There is no use saying that we hope to make provision on some future occasion. They will not be there to benefit by it. They are mostly old men. The affliction of age and infirmity is at present added to that of the threat of destitution. That is not a great boon to ask of our own Parliament—that the threat of destitution should be removed from the evening of the days of those men who served this country. Some of those men have died in the knowledge that they were leaving their widows to face the world alone without resources of any kind. I have sat by their bedsides, and I have known the added agony to them of having to condemn their wives to live an entire life of comparative poverty because they had chosen to take part in the national struggle, and they were now adding to the burden by leaving them destitute and unprovided for.
It is in our power to remedy that situation now at a trifling cost, and it ought to be done. There is no administrative difficulty. There is no legislative difficulty here that cannot be easily surmounted. We have, by a section, provided that the Attorney-General will come within the benefits of this Bill. It is perfectly easy to introduce a new section declaring that any person who represented an Irish constituency in the Nationalist interests in the House of Commons between 1879 and 1918 will be deemed, for the purpose of this Act, to have served the State as a Minister of State, and given the same benefits as an ex-Minister would enjoy. There is no question of spending an extravagant sum as a result of doing that. The sum is not worth talking about. A couple of thousand pounds would cover the whole thing, and it would mean the difference between poverty and modest comfort for those men in their declining years and, which may be even more important, for their widows. Surely that is not too much to ask after 60 years of service. They have never asked for anything. They have never got anything from this country. They never hoped for anything from this country. Their whole lives were based on the assumption that they served for nothing, and in that full knowledge they undertook service. Is it too much to ask now that those last years of their lives should be relieved from the more acute anxieties of poverty?
In this matter, I appeal to the Minister not to allow any Departmental attitude or any other consideration to hold his hand. The proper way to overcome this is to realise that it is a national responsibility, and that no finicky draftsman's rule or other obstruction should deter him. Let a section be put into this Bill on the Report Stage, declaring that for the purposes of this Bill any person who served in the British House of Commons, in Parnell's Party or in Redmond's Party thereafter—or in any Nationalist Party, because there were others who were not members of the main Party—will be deemed to have been a Minister of State for the purpose of this Bill. When that is done the whole case is met. The charge may appear on the accounts of this country for the next ten or 15 years, and will then vanish, but at least we will have the satisfaction of knowing that none of those men died forgotten and ignored. There is a lyrical poem about the man who never to himself hath said: "This is my own, my native land", which urged us to mark him well and note that he died unwept, unhonoured and unsung. In the case of individuals who thought too well of their own country and devoted their whole lives to it, apparently this House is prepared to throw them on one side and forget all about them. I do not think individual Deputies who reflect on that aspect of the situation would wish to do that, and I am asking them now to join with me in saying to the Minister that they do not wish to see forgotten now anybody who served the country as disinterestedly as did those people. They ought to be given this very small consideration. It is not an endowment; it is not any kind of property; it is just a protection from the apprehension of dying hungry and leaving their widows after them to die in the same way.
I asked the Minister—I think I was entitled to ask him—to furnish the House with an estimate of the additional cost of the new section.
About £1,250 for one year only.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2a:—
At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section:—
(5) A secretarial pension shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924 (No. 48 of 1924), or sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934 (No. 43 of 1934), be deemed not to be a pension or allowance payable out of public moneys.
This is giving effect to the principle already accepted in the case of the first amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
As much as we are satisfied that there is justification for looking after people who have given service to the State, I am not satisfied with this section, or that there is any justification for Parliamentary Secretaries qualifying for pensions after three years' service. I wonder if the Minister will say if there is great dislocation of contact with ordinary business, professional or otherwise, on the part of a Parliamentary Secretary who held office for three years, and that there is justification for giving him a pension. Does the Minister want to visualise a situation something like France, where they have a series of Governments every two or three years, by bringing up the number of Parliamentary Secretaries who, after three years or a shorter period of service would qualify for pensions? I am in favour of the principle, but I want to know if the House is sure that there is any justification to give men pensions at the rate mentioned in the section after three years' service. There is no other walk of life in which a man would get anything like the same pension after such service, no matter what contact he had lost. I do not believe that there is such a dislocation of a man's ordinary commercial activities, by the taking over of the office of a Parliamentary Secretary, as would justify the State giving him a pension. I am not satisfied with the section as it stands.
Does it mean that if a Parliamentary Secretary held office for three years and, at the next election did not seek re-election by the people, he would be entitled to a pension?
That is in the Bill as drawn. We had to take it that way in case he were defeated, as good men have been defeated, and later re-elected again. May I put it to Deputies that the real crux here is that it is always comparatively easier to provide a Government and to make provision for them than to provide an Opposition. Ministers have salaries and a certain amount of prestige but, it is a much more difficult problem for any democratic country to provide an able and good Opposition. They have to forego quite a lot that those in office have. They have not got the assistance of a trained secretariat; they have not got the prestige of those who hold office, and they have not got the salaries. In this democratic country, where the private means of individuals who take part in our public life are comparatively limited, and where, as a rule, they have to earn their bread, not being able to depend on the efforts of those who went before them for their day to day livelihood, able men must be put into the position, if they have a taste for public life, of serving the people's interest in the Dáil.
There is great misapprehension in the minds of some Deputies as to the real responsibilities carried by Parliamentary Secretaries. As a rule, they are in charge of very important Departments. I need only point to my own Parliamentary Secretary, who is head of the Office of Public Works, where he administers public money running well over £617,144 yearly, and in order to do that he has to devote considerable time to the work. I think it is a whole-time job. No one can gainsay that, because most of us know Deputy Hugo Flinn's activities, realise the inspections he has to make to familiarise himself with the problems with which he has to deal. No one can deny that the office is a full-time one. There are occasions when he may have to go down the country on inspections, week-end after week-end, and the same holds good in the case of every other Parliamentary Secretary who does his job. Every Parliamentary Secretary, no matter what the Department, must do his job. Otherwise his Minister would not be able to carry on. The office is a whole-time job. Just the same as the Minister, he has to disassociate himself, so far as he can, from any private undertaking. It is equally incumbent on Parliamentary Secretaries to make the same sacrifices as Ministers. Therefore a Parliamentary Secretary, when he goes out of office, and when the people decide they want some other Party to administer their affairs, finds himself inevitably in the same position as a Minister finds himself. This is not a matter of conjecture merely. Deputies have talked of Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers getting pensions after three or five years' service. It may be that their term of office is short, but, before becoming a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister, they have given a great deal of service in the rank and file of the Party which happens to be in power when they are appointed. I speak from intimate personal knowledge of men who were appointed Parliamentary Secretaries, who when they entered politics were men of substance, men with good businesses to look after, and I know from the records of the time, and from the subsequent demands made upon them, that they went out of office and had not one penny piece to their name, and had no business to which they could go back. I can say the same of Ministers. I would say that to-morrow there are Ministers who would be in that position. I would be in that position, if Deputies want to know. It is not human, and not in the ordinary course of nature to expect that you are going to get devoted men to serve as Parliamentary Secretaries—men who have not the prestige of Ministers—if they think they have to face what is practically destitution, or become objects of charity and of commisseration to friends and to the public men when they have ceased to serve in such office.
Accordingly, there is exactly the same justification for making certain that any person who has served as a Parliamentary Secretary should not be dependent upon private benefaction when he goes out of office in order to enable him to provide for himself and his family as is the case with Ministers. Moreover, the big problem of democracy is not to get a democratic government. Governments can always be found easily in democratic countries, but the problem is to get a good, sound informed and experienced Opposition which will fulfil the functions of an Opposition. For it is the recognition of the important functions of the Opposition which differentiates between democratic and totalitarian and party States. In a democracy the next thing in importance to having a good Government is to have an Opposition to criticise and to examine proposals brought forward by that Government. That is why it is necessary to enable the members of such an Opposition to play their part in public affairs here. It has been said that it will be possible to get these pensions after serving three or five years. Perhaps, but the real point is that we want to get persons to remain in public life who, having been three years at the head of a Department of Government, will be men whose experience will be invaluable in Opposition. We want to enable them to serve in Opposition as they have served in office.
I certainly know that in the future, whatever may have been the experience in the past, whether they have served three years or five years in office, only those who have served an arduous apprenticeship in the Dáil and in the constituencies will hold these offices. Therefore, it is not right to say that persons may get pensions because they served three years in office. Therefore, it is not correct to say that a Parliamentary Secretary will get a pension because of only three years' service. As I said earlier, before he takes office a Parliamentary Secretary has built himself up perhaps one career, and when he takes office he has to relinquish that career and embark upon a new one where the limelight of publicity beats very fiercely upon him, where every act of his is subject to criticism, either public or private. Then, at the end of that period, when he has adopted and pursued that career for three, four or five years, when he has made a complete break with his past, he may, simply because the people decide to have a change of government, be put out again to start upon a third career, absolutely from scratch. That has been the experience of those who have served the public interest here in politics in Ireland.
Deputy Dillon, in the cases he has mentioned, emphasised the point which I make. Those who served in the ranks of the Irish Parliamentary Party when the time came and when it was thought they were of no further service to the public, were thrown aside. That is the fate of politicians. It is the very fact that such is the possible fate of those who come into public life in this country that acts as a deterrent, and will act as a deterrent, in the circumstances of the future, to young and able men who think of taking up a public career. If we want engineers we try to get the best men; if we want architects or lawyers we try to get the best men; if we want to get doctors we try to get the best men; and we try to get the best men by offering to them, if you like, a sufficient temporal award. We do not ask a doctor to be a good doctor simply for the honour and glory of it and because of the laurels with which he will be crowned. We offer him that career and we invite him to be a good doctor because we know the emoluments in that case will be worthy of his talents.
If you want to get the best men into public life in Ireland, if you want them in the circumstances of the new State, you have to make it quite clear to those young men who may be thinking of politics, of a political career, that if they enter politics and are put into office and are asked to make the sacrifice which that office imposes on them, that at the end of that period they will not have to go out through the streets buttonholing their friends in order that they may be provided with food and shelter for themselves and their families.
Do you make any distinction between the Parliamentary Secretary who may be disfranchised through being here as against the man who may want to go out after five years and retire from public life? Is there any difference in relation to getting a pension?
It is not possible by any form of words to guard against that situation. You have to legislate for the general case. If particular abuses of that sort arise, I am perfectly certain the Dáil will deal with them.
I understand the object was to safeguard those who might be put out of office by the votes of the people.
Mr. Broderick
The Lord Mayor of Cork has drawn the attention of the House to the great danger in this Bill. I should not, perhaps, say great danger, because the amount involved is not a big lot. The Minister has concentrated on the circumstances of to-day and the immediate past, but he is legislating for the future as well as for to-day. I am quite satisfied that many young men lost their opportunities in the peculiar circumstances of this country and they are entitled to be compensated at the expense of the country. That is the particular circumstance we are dealing with. Let us examine the possibilities. It is all very well for the Minister to say that you must draw the ablest men, the most desirable men, and hold out attractions to them. There are other attractions, too. Assume, for a moment, that you have a Parliamentary Secretary for three years. He retires after that period and he can get absorbed in business or something else, perhaps a more attractive career. You are not retaining his services and you have no way of holding him.
In the same way you may have a man with five years' service as a Minister. Other opportunities may open themselves to him, far more attractive. You are not going to retain that Minister. As a matter of fact, you are giving him opportunities and security in order to go out in competition with the taxpayer who is going to pay him. There is great danger in that. You have already admitted that you cannot legislate for particular cases. I am ready to admit that. You know as well as I do that there are many who will come under this Bill who occupied office for a considerable time and who will be entitled to a pension.
Only if they apply.
Mr. Broderick
You have an extraordinarily exaggerated view of the honour of all people connected with public life—"Only if they apply." Will you point out anyone to me who was entitled to the receipt of £500 who did not apply for it? I think that is too Utopian an idea altogether. I readily agree that it is impossible for you to frame such rigid legislation as will apply only to those entitled to get it. Of course there may be a voluntary sacrifice on their own part. Would it not be far better if you could devise some means, admitting that we are agreeable, so that no man holding high office and who has devoted his time to the State and sacrificed his opportunities, should be left on the scrap-heap? At the same time, you have to take into consideration men who have held ministerial office and have great advantages gained in their experience of ministerial life and to whom there are great attractions offered outside, as there have been to former Ministers —men to whom the provisions you now make are a mere trifle.
To put the matter very clearly, the Dáil ought to see that those who serve the country are not going to be penalised. There is only one way in which you can do it, and safeguard the interests of the State, and that is to set up a judicial commission in camera to whom everybody who is entitled, because of years of service in a ministerial office, to some consideration, can apply. The same thing is done in other countries. The judicial commission could, after hearing the applications, make recommendations to the Dáil on the merits of every case coming before it. I think you can safeguard the interests of the State in that way. Under the Bill as it is framed you will be allowing men to get certain advantages, men to whom these advantages are of very little consequence.
As regards men who are three or five years years in office, the State is more likely to lose their services than to retain them if opportunities of a more attractive nature offer themselves, which is a very likely thing. I think, in justice to the taxpayer and to the individual, there is no way of deciding this question by legislation. You can only do it by establishing a judicial committee which will report to the Dáil on the merits of every case, accepting the principle that those who serve the State ought to be assisted by the State when the need arises.
I have already advocated in a previous Dáil, even as far back as 1924, the policy of making reasonable provision for men who rendered either military or ministerial service and, by rendering such service, made sacrifices in the fight for independence. I should like now to ask the Minister whether the section as amended will enable an ex-Minister entitled to receive a maximum pension, at the same time to receive his full pension under the Military Service Pensions Acts?
The section the committee is dealing with is Section 14.
Yes.
It relates only to pensions to former holders of secretarial office.
Is it to be understood that an ex-Minister now in receipt of, or likely to receive, a military service pension under the Acts of 1924 or 1934, will not have that pension interfered with or reduced in any way if he becomes entitled to a maximum pension under the terms of this Bill?
I might, without going outside my province, inform the Deputy that that point will arise on a later section.
Deputy Davin is not going to be deterred by that.
I assume that the amendment which the Minister has moved would enable such a person to receive a dual pension. If that is so, I think it is a highly objectionable procedure on principle. It is surely objectionable that the same employer should provide one person who would have service of a military kind with a military service pension and a pension under this Bill, and that the military service pension paid to an ex-Minister or ex-Parliamentary Secretary would not be reduced in any way by reason of the fact that he would become entitled to a pension under this Bill. He would have two pensions from the same employer and that is the general taxpayer. I suggest that that is the position and it is a highly objectionable one.
It would be more relevant if the Deputy would, on Section 21, discuss the matter he is now raising.
I bow to your ruling, Sir. I desire to support the appeal made by Deputy Dillon—that if it is possible under the terms of this Bill some provision should be made for the very small number of members of the old Irish Parliamentary Party who are said to be in a destitute or semi-destitute state at the present moment. If, as I believe, every decent person in the State is willing to pay a pension for services rendered in the fight for independence, surely there is nothing objectionable in extending that to the people who led the advance in the fight for independence, I mean the surviving members of the old Irish Parliamentary Party. If I am correctly informed the number of members of the old Irish Parliamentary Party alive at the moment does not exceed 21, and I am reliably informed that five or six of these survivors are in a destitute or semi-destitute state. I understand that the majority of the 21 are over 75 years of age. I know the Minister made a passing reference to the appeal made by Deputy Dillon. What I ask now is that he would give some consideration to that appeal and by doing so I believe he would have the support of a big majority of the people who are prepared to subscribe to the expense of such a measure later.
Deputy Dillon has asked whether it would be in order to refer to the survivors of the old Irish Parliamentary Party. I allowed the Deputy to proceed, largely because I felt it would be ungracious to refuse.
Surely, if it is possible to include an amendment such as the Minister has already put in, it would be possible to put in an amendment on the lines I suggest. I, of course, could not table an amendment but the Minister could table an amendment to include a new class of persons. I invite him to add to the second class of persons a third class of persons.
Before the Minister replies I want to point out on this amendment for including a third class of persons, that the Minister was so convincing in the case he made that I had thought he would be inclined to add the unfortunate Deputies who did not become Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries. The Minister said that the Parliamentary Secretary served his apprenticeship for a number of years and if he becomes a Parliamentary Secretary and is such for three years he becomes entitled to a pension. Now if there is any justification for that case, surely every Deputy who has been here for 15 or 16 years and who did not become a Parliamentary Secretary should get a pension. I would point out to the Minister that there is no good in arguing about the hardships of people who become Parliamentary Secretaries. Surely if the Minister is satisfied that he has made a case for the Parliamentary Secretaries he should be satisfied that there is justification for giving a pension to Deputies who did not become Parliamentary Secretaries. I have already given my opinion on the principles of the Bill. If there is any justification for giving anybody a pension for serving three years in a job as Parliamentary Secretary there ought to be justification equally strong for giving pensions to Deputies who served a number of years without becoming Parliamentary Secretaries.
I have already given my reasons. I said there is a big difference between the Deputy who serves in the Dáil for 15 years and the Parliamentary Secretary who serves three or four or five years in the Parliamentary Office. I emphasised that the difference was that the one man has to make a complete break with his career, while the other man may devote a certain amount of time to his private affairs. I am not in a position to say that he is able to devote as much time as he ought to his private affairs while he is a member of the Dáil. I have had experience of that when in Opposition. I had to come here on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, but I had the rest of the week and the weekends in which to look after my private concerns. That applies to other Deputies, but it does not apply in the case of the Parliamentary Secretary. Whether it does or does not apply to all Parliamentary Secretaries, it is contemplated that in the future it will not— when the principle is established that henceforward the person who assumes Parliamentary Office will have some provision made for him after he is compelled to relinquish office. When that principle is laid down then the person who accepts the position of Parliamentary Secretary will from that time forward dissociate himself from private interests and serve only the State. That is one of the things that will eventually happen.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Dillon, may I say, if I have only referred to it in passing, that it is not because I have not given it a great deal of serious thought. I do feel very deeply that something ought to be done for the persons to whom the Deputy refers. But I do not think that I could possibly fit them into this Bill which deals with Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The former office holder for whom provision has been made by amendment is one of the officers referred to in Part II of the Bill. I do not see how I could possibly make every former member of the Irish Party —every surviving member of the Irish Party—an ex-Minister or ex-Parliamentary Secretary for the purpose of this Bill. The draftsman would laugh me to scorn if I were to attempt to do so. I do not want to overstate the case, but I certainly feel he would be shocked if I asked him to put such an amendment into this Bill. I think he would say that it was quite contrary to the principle of the Bill. However, I do think there is a case to be met, but I think that, perhaps, instead of raising it here in this way if the Deputy would get some other members of the House to associate themselves with him in asking that this matter should be considered we may be able to do something in that regard. As I say, I think there is a historic obligation upon our people to see that those who served during the period prior to 1918 will not be allowed to die in penury and want. It is one of the sad characteristics of our whole political history that that is what is happening and, so far as I personally am concerned (the Deputy will quite understand me—I am speaking quite personally—I cannot speak for my colleagues in the Government) I think there is a case to be met there and I am perfectly prepared to consider it if it is put in a reasonable way.
Question—"That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(1) Where a person becomes entitled on the same day to both a ministerial pension and a secretarial pension, such person shall be deemed not to be entitled to such secretarial pension.
(2) Where a person who is entitled to a secretarial pension subsequently becomes entitled to a ministerial pension such person shall as on and from the date on which he becomes entitled to such ministerial pension cease to be entitled to such secretarial pension.
(3) A person shall not be entitled to reckon the same period of time both for the purpose of a ministerial pension or a secretarial pension and also for the purpose of a pension or allowance under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1934, or the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1936, or any other Act, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act, whereunder such person shall or may become entitled to any pension the amount of which is determined by length of service.
I move amendment No. 4a:—
At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section:—
(4) Where—
(a) a person who is entitled to a military service pension under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924 (No. 48 of 1924), becomes entitled on the date of the passing of this Act to a ministerial pension or a secretarial pension, and
(b) any period of time which is reckoned for the purpose of computing the amount of such military service pension would, but for the next preceding sub-section, be reckonable also for the purpose of computing the amount of such ministerial pension or secretarial pension, and
(c) such person has, not later than 12 months after the date on which he has applied for such ministerial pension or secretarial pension, given notice in writing to the Minister for Finance that he desires to surrender so much of such military service pension as is calculated by reference to either (as may be stated in such notice) such period of time or any specified part thereof,
the following provisions shall as on and from the giving of such notice have effect, that is to say:—
(i) such military service pension shall be reduced by the amount thereof which such person so desires to surrender, and
(ii) such period of time or such specified part thereof (as the case may be) shall, for the purpose of calculating the amount of such ministerial pension or secretarial pension, be treated as a period of pensionable service and be deemed to be of the same notional length as if it were calculated under the First Schedule to the said Act.
There may be a number of difficult cases arising in connection with the period 1919-21, when there was a certain very close association between the Army and the political administration of the time, and this section is to allow a person who might have been in a dual capacity to opt as to which of the capacities he will take.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(7) The following provisions shall have effect in respect of any widow's pension or child's allowance payable in respect of a deceased person, that is to say:—
(a) if such person dies before the date of the passing of this Act, such pension or allowance shall commence to be payable—
(i) in case an application therefor is duly made not later than six months after such date, as on and from such date, or
(ii) in any other case, as on and from the date on which the application therefor is duly made;
I move amendment No. 10a:—
In sub-section (7), page 9, to delete line 61, and substitute the words "the 1st day of April, 1938, or the day next following the date of the death of such person, whichever day is the later, or".
In the debate on the Second Reading it was pointed out that the Shanley Committee had emphasised that in regard to certain cases action should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. This proposal is to allow us to pay the widows' pensions as from the 1st day of April, 1938, that is, to existing widows.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11a:—
At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section—
(9) A widow's pension shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924 (No. 48 of 1924), or sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934 (No. 43 of 1934), be deemed not to be a pension or allowance payable out of public moneys.
That is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) It shall be a condition precedent to the grant of any pension, or allowance under this Part of this Act that an application (which shall be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars) shall be made therefor to the Minister for Finance by the person entitled thereto or, in the case of a child's allowance, by the guardian of the child entitled thereto or some other person approved by the said Minister.
(2) All pensions and allowances under this Part of this Act shall be granted by the Minister for Finance.
(3) Every child's allowance granted by the Minister for Finance to a child shall be paid for the benefit of such child to the guardian of such child or to some other person approved by the said Minister.
(4) The Minister for Finance may make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this section as prescribed, and the word "prescribed" in this section means prescribed by such regulations, and different regulations may be made in relation to ministerial pensions, secretarial pensions, widows' pensions, and children's allowances.
I move amendments Nos. 11b, 11c, 11d:—
11b. In sub-section (1), page 10, line 18, after the word "pension" to insert the word "gratuity".
11c. In sub-section (2), page 10, line 24, to insert after the word "pensions" the word "gratuities".
11d. In sub-section (4), page 10. line 34, to insert after the words "ministerial pensions" the words "gratuities under this Part of this Act,".
These are all consequential amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) Every assignment of and every charge on and every agreement to assign or charge any pension or allowance under this Part of this Act shall, except so far as the same is authorised by an Act for the time being in force, be null and void.
(2) No pension or allowance granted under this Part of this Act shall be capable of being taken in execution or otherwise alienated by process of law for the payment of any debts or liabilities of the person to whom such person or allowance is granted under this Part of this Act.
I move amendment No. 11e:—
In page 10, to insert after the word "pension" where it occurs in lines 37, 40 and 43 the word "gratuity".
This is also a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(3) In this section— the expression "pension under Part IV" means a pension or allowance payable under this Part of this Act; the expression "payment out of public moneys" means—
(a) any remuneration, pension or allowance payable out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas or out of the Central Fund or out of the funds of a local authority, or
(b) any remuneration of a position to which the holder has been nominated by the Government, or a Minister of State,
but does not include—
(c) a pension under Part IV, or (d) an allowance as a member of either House of the Oireachtas under the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938 (No. —— of 1938), or
I move amendment No. 11f:—
In sub-section (3), page 12, to delete paragraph (d), lines 9, 10 and 11.
Provision has been made for that in another Act.
It is hard to hear the Minister on this side of the House. This is a very important section.
We are dealing with the amendment. In regard to 11f, Sir, the Bill dealing with the Oireachtas allowances makes this provision and, accordingly, it is proposed to delete it here in this Bill.
Amendment 11f agreed to.
Question proposed—"That Section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would ask the Minister to explain the position of persons who are likely to benefit under this section of the Bill, especially in relation to their position as pensioners under the Military Service Pensions Acts, of 1924 and 1934, and whether the military service pensions will in any case be affected by what they are likely to receive under the terms of this Bill.
The purpose of this section—not the purpose of the section only, but together with certain amendments which have been agreed to by the House—was, as I pointed out when introducing these amendments, to give effect to the proposals of the Shanley Committee that ministerial pensions should not be suspended or abated in respect of a pension or allowance payable under the Military Service Pension Acts or the Army Pensions Acts in respect of service or wound disability suffered prior to the 30th September, 1923. It is quite true that, where a military service pension has been awarded and a ministerial pension subsequently qualified for, that the person would be able to draw these two pen sions, but he will not be able to draw the two of them in respect of the one period of service. The military service pension will stand in relation to military service rendered prior to 1923. The ministerial pension, if the person should qualify for such pension, will, accordingly, be in respect of separate service. A person will not be able to draw the two pensions in respect of the one period of service.
It will be possible for an ex-Minister, qualifying for the maximum pension under this Bill, to get £500 on the one hand and perhaps £300 under the Military Service Pensions Act, on the other. Is not that possible?
That is possible. Whether it is probable is another matter.
I suggest that the Minister knows it is probable, because I am sure he has at his finger tips, from the people who helped him to make out the estimate, particulars of the payments that are going to be made under the terms of this Bill, and he also has at his disposal particulars regarding the amounts presently received, or about to be received, by Ministers under the Military Service Pensions Act.
I have not got them at my finger tips.
At any rate, I protest against the principle of two pensions being provided by the same employer, namely, the general taxpayer.
Is the Deputy objecting to the amendment, because that is really to delete a repetition?
I am objecting to the principle of calling upon the one employer to provide two pensions for similar service.
Not similar and not the same.
Not detached.
The Deputy must be quite fair. It is neither similar nor the same. The military service pension is for service in the field rendered prior to 1923. The other pension is for service as a member of the Government rendered at a different period.
Is there any precedent for this kind of legislation?
I presume there is.
The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Pattison, James P.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies Keyes and Corish.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 22.
Every pension and allowance payable under this Part of this Act shall be charged upon and payable out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.
I move amendment No. 12a:—
In page 12, line 18, to insert after the word "pension" the word "gratuity."
This amendment is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LONG TITLE.
An Act to make provision for regulating the salaries of members of the Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Attorney-General, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of Dáil Eireann, and the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of Seanad Eireann, to provide for the payment of additional allowances to the leaders of certain Parties in Dáil Eireann, to provide for the payment of pensions and allowances to and in respect of persons who have held certain ministerial and parliamentary offices, and to provide for certain other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
I move amendment No. 12b:—
In page 2, line 15, to insert after the word "pensions" the word "gratuities."
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed.
Bill reported with amendments.
When will the Report Stage be taken?
To-morrow?
Does that give a reasonable time for anybody who wishes to put in amendments? What is the urgency for the passage of this measure?
The Christmas holidays.
Is it urgent?
Well, it is, in so far as the Committee recommended that steps should be taken at the earliest possible date to implement certain proposals. I cannot go further than that; the Committee recommended that steps should be taken on foot of their recommendations at the earliest possible moment. In addition, I understand it is the desire, if possible, to rise to-morrow. I am in the hands of the House in that regard; we can put it back.
We think that this matter ought not to be unduly rushed. We think, especially, that the reason given for the passage of this Bill—that the House is to rise to-morrow—is an unworthy one. We have been informed that it is proposed there should be a long adjournment. We think it is unnecessary. We think that the passage of Bills of this kind—this Bill and the one to follow it to-day— immediately before the adjournment of the House is a very unseemly proceeding, and we object to it.
It is not necessary to have a sort of formal objection. I understood that the Deputy who has just spoken, like other Deputies, was anxious for an early adjournment.
No.
Then we will alter it, and fix the Bill for this day week.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7th December.