I move amendment No. 1:—
At the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply and have effect as and from the termination of the present emergency.
Committee on Finance. - Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1944—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
This amendment governs amendment No. 3.
All the amendments are of the same tenor. The purpose is to prevent the retrospective intentions set out in the Bill. The matter to which this amending Bill relates was explained on the Second Reading by the Minister, and it is felt by those affected that the retrospective provisions would be a grave hardship upon many pensioners, particularly those in the lower categories. As I understand it, the purpose is that when arrears of pensions are made payable, sections of the Act of 1934 mentioned in the amending Bill shall operate and have the effect of suspending payments relating to those arrears. The intention of the amendment is that the idea of applying the suspension of the abatements in the case of those employed in the Civil Service, or who derive money from the Central Fund, should not apply until after the present emergency. As the case was made that this is an attempt on the part of some parties to drive a coach and four through the provisions of that Act, I want to assure the House and the Minister that we are not concerned, and have not any sympathy, with such an attempt. We are concerned with the fact that at present, with the increased cost of living, suspension of pensions under sections in this Bill would impose very grave hardship, particularly on the Old I.R.A. forces that would come under the implementation of its provisions. We know that it is quite within the order of things that the Minister should come to the House in an endeavour to save the Central Fund a sum, estimated at £300,000, but we think the paramount consideration should be the justice of the case irrespective of the amount involved. It should be the dictum in law that justice should reign even though the heavens fall.
If the idea of this Bill, with its retrospective slant, is to be passed by the House, it would appear that the new idea of law is that justice should reign if it does not cost the Exchequer too much. That would be a lamentable state of affairs, and I should like to argue this, first of all, from the point of view of elementary justice, and, secondly, from the point of view that this amending Bill should be suspended during the period of the present emergency, since it would appear that the Bill was introduced because some people might derive certain benefits during the emergency. First of all, we understand that the introduction of this Bill is an attempt by the Minister to forestall a case that might come before the courts. We do not know whether any such case has been cited, but, if so, it would appear that the Minister has been trying to put in an amendment to the Bill before such a case could be tried. As far as this particular amendment is concerned, we say, in effect, that whether the Minister is right in his interpretation of the original Act or not, or whether the other people concerned are right in their interpretation, the provisions of the Act concerned should be suspended pending the duration of the present emergency, because of the hardship imposed on these pensioners under the section.
I cannot accept this amendment. There is no question but that the object of the amendment is to make the Bill inoperative, and for that reason I cannot accept it. Deputy Connolly seems to be badly informed with regard to the circumstances which led to the introduction of this Bill. The implementation of the Bill will not affect any member of the Old I.R.A., any more than he has been affected by any of the various Bills that have been introduced during almost the past 20 years. This Bill merely makes certain that a flaw—if there is a flaw—which appears to exist, will be removed.
Of course, lawyers differ on such questions, but it was necessary to remove that flaw, if it existed, so as to see that the Act would continue to function in the future as it has functioned during the past 20 years. There is no case before the courts either, and, accordingly, the Deputy does not seem to be well informed. Nobody, apparently has attempted to challenge this matter in the courts, but, in case there should be such a challenge, we are taking time by the forelock, so to speak, by ensuring that the sums of money that would be likely to be involved as a result of the successful termination of such a case will not be given away.
Deputy Connolly—and I myself, for that matter—will agree that there are certain duties to be carried out so far as the Old I.R.A. men are concerned, and I think that these duties have been fairly carried out under the various Acts that have been passed by the Oireachtas; but it must also be remembered that we have duties to the taxpayers, and if we have, as has been stated, dealt with all the individuals concerned in a reasonably generous fashion, I do not see why we should go out of our way to add another £300,000 to the large sum that is being spent annually in respect of these pensions. I should like to say also that the passing of this Bill will not affect in any respect any individual concerned, any more than he has been affected in the past. We know that there are some people in the public service of this country, in receipt of large salaries, who get no military service pensions as a result of being in receipt of these salaries, but we know also that there are many thousands of public servants with smaller salaries who would be affected. Apparently, it was accepted as something that was there, and it was not challenged until quite recently. Of course, when that challenge came, we had to go into the matter, so as to ensure, so far as possible, that no decision would be given in the courts that might, perhaps, be adverse.
We had to safeguard, as far as possible, the money in question, and I want to emphasise that the Schedule to the Act, which has been operative for the last twenty years, which passed through this House in 1924 and again in 1934, and to which, apparently, no Deputy took any exception, will continue to operate as it has been operating all through these years. Accordingly, Sir, I cannot accept this or the other amendments, because it is obvious that they are designed to make the Bill completely inoperative.
The Minister has stated that there was no case before the courts. If that is so, then I have not been correctly informed. Will the Minister state, however, in what manner the challenge came to him, if there was not a case before the courts? The Minister also states that there may be a flaw in the Act, but he does not believe that there is. Well, if there is no flaw in the Act, why does he introduce this amending Bill? If there is no case before the courts, why do we have this raised here in the Dáil?
There are many cases of obscurity with regard to various Bills, and the Government are aware of these, but in this case one must assume that the Government was advised by its legal advisers that there was some danger that the courts might hold that the people concerned here would be entitled to a certain amount of compensation. Therefore, I must assume that the legal advisers of the Minister are not satisfied with the present position, and that the people concerned are entitled to get the pensions that were granted to them. I think that, from the point of view of the Minister's allegiance in that matter, he, like I, would like to see all Old I.R.A. men getting their pensions.
The Minister says that he has a duty to the taxpayer and because of that he is imposing a means test upon a certain section of the Old I.R.A. which is not imposed on another section. It is because he has a certain control over the incomes of these people he is endeavouring to penalise them. Take, for instance, the case of farmers, shopkeepers or professional men outside the public service who are getting pensions. There is no means of attaching their salaries or incomes. It is simply because these other people are in the public service that you have a means of controlling their incomes and that you impose a means test upon them. I submit that is not an equitable proposal and, apart altogether from the point put forward by Deputy Connolly, I would urge that the operation of this section should be postponed until the end of the emergency. It would be impossible to operate this means test in the case of people outside the public service and I think it is altogether unfair, therefore, to impose it in the case of men in the public service.
I agree with the Minister when he says that it has been the custom to make these deductions in cases where pensions have been paid but I should like to point out to him that in these cases the statutory declaration which the pensioner makes merely states the amount which the pensioner received during the previous quarter from any public funds or from any local authority. Take the case of an applicant under the 1934 Act. The pension was payable from the 1st October, 1934, and he was perhaps granted the pension in December, 1934.
He was getting three days' work on a minor relief scheme, and because he was employed by the local authority he had to make a statutory declaration that he received three days' wages in the week, and then, if it was under £100, his pension was reduced by 5 per cent. I think that is the correct figure. A number of cases have been held over and a person who is qualifying only now is paid a lump sum to cover arrears from the 1st October, 1934. The statutory declaration that such an applicant is bound to make covers only what he earned in the last quarter. So, therefore, the Minister by this section is changing the position as it stood originally. The pensioner was not called upon to show that he earned something last year or the year before, but the Minister is now endeavouring to make sure, although the applicant was not bound to make such a declaration, that he will have this advantage over him. Because of that I am supporting this amendment.
When one argues with the Minister that a pensioner is at a disadvantage and that in justice and in equity he is entitled to have that disadvantage removed, the Minister will say: "That cannot be done because it would involve an amendment of the Act and we could not undertake that." When, however, there is a belief in Finance that something is in favour of an applicant, then Finance and Defence both move with the real pincers movement to deprive the applicant of whatever rights he has. The Minister is not absolutely correct when he says that this custom has always obtained. It has obtained only in particular cases and an applicant employed in the public service was obliged to state only what he had earned in the preceding quarter.
I think that applicants for pensions are entitled to any benefit that the existing legislation confers upon them. I would allow the provisions to operate from the time a man gets a pension and if he worked in the next quarter. I would put him on an equal footing with the man who had been getting a pension previously and who was also engaged in the public service. The sum involved is very trifling, comparatively speaking, and when one considers that the minimum pension is only £2 15s., and that it is proposed to take 5 per cent. off that in respect of a man working three or four days a week on a minor relief scheme, I suggest that the schedule was never intended for these people at all. However, I shall deal with that when we come to a later stage of the Bill. I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment and that he should not attempt to deprive these men of whatever little advantage they may enjoy under the existing legislation.
I feel that the Minister's object in this section is to forestall something that he fears may happen which might confer an advantage on persons in receipt of pensions. I therefore propose to support this amendment. The Minister stated that lawyers differ in many cases, but I think that it is a disgraceful state of affairs to subject old I.R.A. men to a means test. Surely when those men went out to fight they had no idea that there would be any test imposed either in regard to their circumstances or results of their action. There were no conditions of that kind whatsoever in their minds. It is too bad, therefore, that their means of livelihood should be taken into account in an effort to mitigate their pensions—pensions, let it be remembered, that they never looked for or expected in those days. In my opinion the Minister should accept the amendment. As far as I am concerned if there is a vote on it, I certainly shall vote for the amendment, because I think it very unfair that such men who have jobs—and many of them have neither jobs nor pensions—should have their way of living taken into account in an effort to reduce the amount of the pension to which they are entitled.
I should also like to support this amendment as the section in its present form would impose a great hardship on many men in the town from which I come. I know men, with a pension of 6/- a week, who are subject to deductions in this way. I would ask the Minister in all sincerity to stay his hand for the moment because I do not think that this is a time for taking action of this kind having regard to the feelings which exist among members of the old I.R.A., who are a very dissatisfied body at the moment.
I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision not to accept this amendment. I am sure that all Parties are agreed that it is not desirable to have a tug-of-war in the House in regard to the position of the old I.R.A. We would all like agreement on this matter, if possible. I would strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this amendment, which is the most innocuous of all those that have been put down. It appears to me that the Minister believes that the principle of the abatement of pensions has been sanctified, by reason of the fact that the Act was passed through this House on two previous occasions. I should like to remind the Minister that this Pensions Act has not been before the House since 1934. It has been locked up, and there has been no opportunity of considering it. In 1934, when it was before the House, the Minister will remember, there was a minor crisis in the City of Dublin. There was a six weeks' Press strike and most of the I.R.A. organisations which could have presented very strong arguments in reference to the Act were totally unaware of what was occurring in the House. That is why the Bill passed through the House with such ease. But now that there is an opportunity of reviewing the position, surely the Minister should be generous because, undoubtedly, he must have the interests of these men at heart. Even if he is not prepared to extend this principle generally he might be prepared to consider the severe hardships of the present emergency and not have the balance weighed against these men for the period of the emergency.
I think it should be made quite clear and plain that it is undoubtedly a hardship to those in the public service that their pensions are subject to abatement for no other reason than that they took part in the war of independence in order to establish freedom, justice and right in this country. That is the only reason why their pensions are being abated. I wish to put one aspect of the situation to the Minister which may not have occurred to him and which, if he considers it, may have the effect of changing his attitude. If the pensions of those who are in public employment are abated, there is an indirect inference that they have obtained their present positions because of the fact that they rendered national service and not because of their having ability equal to that of their fellow employees. We all know that in the case of the Civil Service and other occupations, in respect of which pensions are abated, the pensioners have obtained their positions generally through competitive examinations, that they are on a par with their fellow-employees in every way, and that it is not because of their national service that they get any preference. But, if portion of their pensions is deducted because they are in the service of the State it is indirectly suggested, on the one hand, they were put into their positions because of their national service and, on the other hand, that there should be a balance against them and that they should suffer a deduction from their pensions. I think that point reveals an entirely new aspect of the situation.
The operation of this abatement has become much harsher than would appear from the references to it by other speakers. I do not think it was ever intended, when this House agreed to the various stabilisation Orders in regard to the bonus, fixing it at 185, that it would operate against these pensions as adversely as it does. The House knows that there are cases of men pursuing similar occupations, working side by side, one of whom may be employed directly by the Board of Works, for instance, and the other employed by a contractor to the Board of Works.
The man who is employed directly by the Board of Works suffers these abatements, namely, 5, 10, 20 or 30 per cent. and upwards, as the case may be, whereas his colleague suffers no such abatement. A bonus of 10/- a week, to meet the high cost of living, was granted recently. How did it operate in regard to such men? I shall give the figures that I have been given and I am sure the Minister can certify that they are correct. I shall give a typical case. There were two men, one employed by the Board of Works and another employed by an outside contractor, doing exactly the same type of work and service for the State. Before the 10/- bonus was granted, the wages in each case were roughly £182. The man who was employed by the outside contractor had a pension of £130 and his total emoluments per annum were £312. The man who was employed directly by the State and who suffered an abatement of his pension, had a pension of roughly £156, subject to a deduction of 20 per cent., which gave him a net pension of £125. He received, in all, therefore, £307. His pension was £26 more than the pension of his fellow-worker but the net effect of the abatement was to give him £5 per annum less. That is not a great hardship. He was suffering only to the extent of £5 in his total remuneration as compared with his colleague. But consider the anomaly that occurs when there is the addition of the 10/- bonus which is intended to alleviate hardship and to compensate in some way for the high cost of living. The wages of the man who is employed by the outside contractor are increased to £208. He still had a pension of £130 without abatement, and he now receives £338. That is a good increase. We would not consider it sufficient, but still it is an increase that helps him to weather the storm of this emergency. In the case of the man who suffers the abatement, the 10/- bonus brings his wages to £208 but, instead of being subject to a 20 per cent. deduction, he is now subject to a 30 per cent. deduction and his net pension is £109, giving him a total of £317. Now, although he still has a pension which is £26 greater than that of his fellow employee, in the net result he receives £21 less.
Surely the Minister or the Minister for Finance did not intend that there should be these discrepancies and anomalies. In an attempt to prevent such anomalies, we have submitted this amendment, in the hope that the Minister will stay his hand until the emergency is over. Our position in regard to the amendment is that we are preventing an alteration in the principal Act. The Minister says that there has been a challenge—we will wait for him to tell us how the challenge has been made—but that it is still in the balance as to how the interpretation of the old Act will go. But we hold that the old Act conferred certain property rights on persons who may be considered beneficiaries under that Act. These property rights may be hypothetical; it may require a court case to determine that one way or the other. I say that that should be left to the courts to determine.
The purpose of this amending Bill is to take away property rights which these men had under an old Act, to deprive them of rights granted to them by the law to payments out of the Central Fund. As the Minister has stated, the Dáil has twice passed this principle and determined that these payments should be made to them. It now happens that there is a difference of opinion as to what should be paid to them, but, so far as the Acts go, they were passed in order to give a fair balance to beneficiaries under them, and there was no intention to discriminate against these applicants, should it be found that there was any legal flaw in the legislation which would be to their benefit. The more one looks into it, the more one feels that it should be the intention of this Legislature to deal with these people from the point of view of national record, of what these men did for the setting up of the State which enables us to argue in a legislative Assembly here, and to give them the greatest benefit possible of any doubt under any section of the Acts.
I desire to press on the Minister the merits of this amendment. The Minister mentioned that there was a likelihood of a challenge and I think I know where the challenge is coming from. A certain body of these men have taken legal opinion and propose to start proceedings. I believe they instructed a certain solicitor and possibly the Minister has the ear of this solicitor. He proposed to settle the matter out of court, if it were possible, but apparently when the Government, and particularly the Department of Finance, got wind of it, they decided to circumscribe the right of these men by this legislation. On the question of granting these pensions, it is possible, as the Minister has said, that he has a duty to the taxpayers. I further believe that we have probably gone beyond the limits in the matter of granting pensions in this country, but the fact that we have done so is no justification for withholding a pension or portion of a pension from people who gave national service and who are being penalised merely because they are employed in one branch or other of the public service. It would be far better to give more than justice to some than to do injustice to a small section, and it is only a very small section of these people who are employed in the public service.
The really pernicious feature of the Bill, however, is the fact that the Minister is attempting to circumscribe the rights which people have under the law to go to the courts. It is quite easy to foresee the disastrous results which could follow the introduction by a Minister, every time persons decided to go to the courts to seek rights, of a Bill to nullify the advantages which might accrue to these persons, or at any rate to prevent their being adjudicated on. There is no knowing what such action might lead to. We have on numerous occasions since the start of the emergency seen how various Emergency Powers Orders have been used to circumscribe the rights of citizens under the law. It may be that, in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, that was a highly desirable thing to do, but there is no justification whatever for penalising these people, and particularly for attempting to forestall, as the Minister admits is being attempted, a decision of the courts, which might be in favour of the Minister or of the applicant. He has no right whatever to attempt to circumscribe the rights of people under the law.
In supporting this amendment, my object is to see that no injustice will be done to the men who, as I hold, are responsible for this State functioning to-day. We hear a lot about what the previous Government and the present Government have done for keeping the country safe and for putting it into the position in which it can be neutral to-day, but I hold that the men whose cases we are dealing with now are the men responsible for that position. Were it not for the stand which these men took, this country would not be neutral to-day, and I am surprised, knowing the Minister's sympathy with, and regard for, these men and what they did, that he should be responsible for bringing forward a Bill to take away some of the rights they hold.
I do not at all agree with Deputy Cosgrave that we have gone beyond the limits in the matter of looking after these people. I am afraid he is not aware that there are hundreds—aye, thousands—of these people who lost everything at that time and who have not received a penny in pension.
Now the Deputy is exaggerating.
Deputy Cosgrave did not say that.
He said that we had gone beyond the limits, but there are men who went out in 1916 and who remained in the I.R.A. until the Truce was signed who have not received one shilling, although they took part in every engagement.
Would the Deputy please not misrepresent me? I said that we should give justice and more than justice to these people. The Deputy is an adept at that sort of thing.
I am surprised that the Minister should be a party to bringing forward legislation which seeks to take away from these men the little rights granted to them, and I appeal to him not to allow this matter to go to a vote—if it does, I believe it will be carried—but to give an assurance that something satisfactory, which the House could accept, will be brought forward on Report Stage.
May I put this point to the Minister? There is approximately a 5 per cent. advantage to the applicant in the overwhelming number of cases. Did the Minister put the case to Finance that, where a person is now receiving a lump sum, instead of a deduction of 5 per cent. being made from his pension, he is entitled to 5 per cent. compound interest on the amount? The man in receipt of the pension has had the benefit of it, but the other man has been nine or ten years without it, and many a hard day he had since waiting for it, as I know. The reason I support the amendment is that in the majority of cases—and the cases I have sympathy with are those of the county council worker and the person in receipt of a small salary from whom this 5 per cent. deduction is being made—the law, as I hold, did not make the deduction. The Minister is now making sure that it does. I believe that is done at the behest of Finance, and that, instead of doing that, the Minister should have argued for compound interest at 5 per cent. on the amount outstanding. Before he rejects this amendment, I should like him to tell us that he has fought that case and lost. If he has, I appeal to the Government Deputies to support the amendment and defeat this proposal of the Minister.
I also strongly support the amendment of Deputy Connolly. It is no credit to an Irish Government to be always butting in and trying to deprive Old I.R.A. men of their rights. Anything they got, they got for service to the country. They never looked for it. It was given by a benevolent Government for honest and faithful service. I always held that the means test was despicable. The majority of these men down the country have anything from 7/6 to 15/- a week and, when they get a job under the county council or any subsidiary body, they find that their pension is docked. That is most despicable. I hold that the means test should never have been applied. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and show that he, as well as we on this side of the House, will stand for justice for men who deserve justice.
There is one point I should like to make. The Minister is amending this Pensions Act. I could never understand why a man should be penalised because he goes into the service of the State or into the public service. We know that men who are drawing small wages or salaries, either from the State or a local authority, are penalised by a reduction in the pension which has been granted to them by the State and under the law. We also know that men in private life, business men, professional men and others, who are earning anything from £200 to £3,000 a year, many of them in receipt of a very big yearly income because of Acts passed by this House, are not subject to any deduction whatever. It seems to me that it is a vicious principle that because a man elects to go into the State service or public service he should be penalised. If he decides to set up in business for himself, or to carry on any other profession, and earns anything up to £5,000 or £10,000 a year, so far as I know there is no deduction from his pension. If a man is reduced to that point of destitution that he seeks rotation work, I think there is something seriously wrong when that is used against him. I think the original Act requires amendment, but not along the lines suggested by the Minister.
I should like to reply to some of the questions that have been raised, and I shall start with the last speaker. I am almost certain that Deputy Morrissey was in the Dáil when these Acts were passed, and I wonder did he describe the schedule as being a vicious method operating against Old I.R.A. men, public servants and others at that particular time.
To be quite candid, I never thought it was the intention to work it as it is now being worked. I may have been remiss then, but certainly I did not believe that that was the intention behind it.
I find it difficult to understand how members of the Oireachtas, who were probably present at the passing of these particular Bills, and who during the period of years which has passed since the first of these Bills became an Act never mentioned the matter, should now suddenly decide that the methods operated during these years are all wrong.
Like the Minister, we woke up.
Deputy Connolly asked under what circumstances we had come to take the action which we have taken if a case had not been brought into court. The circumstances were that there were threats of action lodged with us and we had to make a move then. We sought legal advice and, as Deputy Connolly must realise, lawyers, like doctors, differ. We were advised by some lawyers that the interpretation which has been placed on the particular clause for 20 years was a good interpretation and would stand the test of law. Other lawyers told us that it was possible that the view of the people who were making application might be upheld. Whether one or the other was the right advice, so far as we were concerned we had to see that we did not leave a gap open through which people would secure something to which they were not entitled. The object of this Bill is not to deprive any person of a legal right to which he is entitled or a right which is vested in him by law, but mainly to prevent people from claiming a right which the Oireachtas never intended them to have. That is what we are doing here.
If the Minister is right, would not the court maintain that?
Yes, but we want to secure, so far as we are concerned, that so far as lies within our power we will see that it is not placed in the hands of the court as against the Oireachtas to decide this.
Is the Minister dealing with the law or the intention of the Oireachtas?
I am as certain as one could be certain of anything, that, when the Oireachtas was passing these Acts, they had in mind the interpretation which we are giving to them and which the former Government had been giving to them.
That is not the law.
I do not know what the Deputy means by saying it is not the law, unless he suggests that both the previous Government and this Government have been breaking the law for 20 years.
I do not suggest that. But how is it you are making sure what the intention of the Oireachtas was when the intention of the Oireachtas has not been the law, according to the Minister?
I am certain the Oireachtas never intended to differentiate between the two typical cases I mentioned last week. I mentioned the cases of two public servants, both of them receiving the maximum sum in respect of their service—£550, or whatever the maximum may have been. Both of these people applied for a pension. They are both granted £200. One of them applied in 1934, because the Pensions Board at that particular time appealed to applicants to come forward early with their applications. The other applicant does not apply until a later period. His case is not decided until 1944. What happens? The man who applied promptly in 1934 has his pension abated from the moment it is granted. The man who was dilatory or who, for reasons known, perhaps, only to himself, did not apply and has not his pension granted until 1944, gets a sum of £2,000 as against nothing for the other man.
Does not that apply to the lower scales, as well?
I am certain that the Oireachtas never intended that a differentiation like that should take place. I am certain that the Oireachtas intended that the pensions should be payable from the date on which the Bill became an Act and not from the date on which the pensions were granted, and it is because I am certain of that, that I believe I am doing no injustice, good, bad or indifferent, to any individual. This is a good string to play tunes on, and I have no doubt that full advantage is being taken of it for that purpose; but I say that the House has other duties as well, and those duties are to the taxpayer. We have dealt reasonably generously with these men and it has involved a considerable sum of money.
Deputy MacEoin, I think, has referred to the sum as being of no importance. I wish to assure him that it is of very great importance. There are 2,800 cases involved, and a sum of something between £200,000 and £300,000 will also be involved. If you do this, you might as well remove the Schedule altogether; and, if you do that, then the sum involved will run into millions. I do not know whether the House has considered that aspect of the matter or not. As I said at the beginning, I am not going to accept any of these amendments, as they are intended merely to make this Bill entirely inoperative.
Would the Minister consider this point? He has stated the case in which there is complete abatement, that is, the person is in receipt of a salary of £550. I do not think that that is a fair one to cite. We are not arguing for that particular case, as I am perfectly certain that it was the intention of the Oireachtas that, where a person was re-employed to the figure of £550, he was not to get the pension due to him while he was in receipt of that salary. But there is the case of a person in receipt of £10 a year. The Minister informs me that the minimum pension payable under both Acts is £2 15s. Id., or some figure like that, but even at that if the man gets three days' employment a week, there is a deduction.
When the Minister takes the step to amend the Act to protect Finance would he not consider amending the Schedule in the original Act, taking out any deduction under £250? That would mean there would be no reduction at all until you were in receipt of at least £250 a year and, after that, the deductions would take place. If the Minister insists upon putting the deduction upon the lump sum, I cannot see any reason in the world why the man who is entitled to receive the pension should not get the 5 per cent. compound interest on it for the ten years. He is putting the case of the man applying in November of 1934 and that of a man not applying until later; but what about two men applying equally on the same dates? One got the pension in 1935 and the other has not got it until 1944; one has the benefit of it all the time and the other is without it. The man who now qualifies is going to suffer this deduction in the lump sum. If he only put it in the Post Office it would get 3½ per cent. if he had it from 1934, if it had been paid. I admit that, if this section were passed, it would defeat the Bill, but I think the Schedule should be amended.
There are some points the Minister brought up which make me believe that he does not quite appreciate the intention of the amendment. He has not told us yet how this amendment will have the effect of destroying the whole amending Bill. I would like him to apply himself to that point. The amendment distinctly states: "The provisions of this section shall apply and have effect as and from the termination of the present emergency." Our intention is not at all to deprive the Minister of rights which he thinks he is justly entitled to. We think, however, the Minister should not attempt to deprive beneficiaries under this Act of the rights to which they are justly entitled.
The Minister talked about playing on this tuneful sort of rhapsody, but I assure him my intention is far from that. I was informed by a prominent member of the Minister's own Party that the intention of this Bill was to do what he stated in reference to the higher levels, to those in receipt of £550. I have no interest in those higher levels, except from the point of view of natural justice and equity. I was informed — wrongly, but unwittingly—that this Bill applied only to the higher categories, and had I believed that I would not have put down such an amendment as this. I am concerned only with the lower categories, which have been specified by Deputy MacEoin and other Deputies.
The Minister talked about this £550 and the ten years during which the man did not draw it, but he did not say that, during those ten years, the man had not the benefit of the pension. The abatement which the other man suffered might be taken in some way as interest for the non-use of the pension over the ten years. The Minister probably did not consider that. He did not tell us that this applies also to the lower level, to the 5, 10 and 20 per cent. deductions. I gave an actual case, where there were 20 and 30 per cent. deductions. Will not this amending Bill apply to them and wipe out the property rights which these men have?
It is not our intention to make use of this for gaining political kudos, or to make the I.R.A. something to wrangle over here. If the Minister would undertake to see that the provisions of this amending Bill do not apply to those under the figure mentioned by Deputy MacEoin—say under £250— I will undertake to withdraw the amendment. Failing the undertaking of the Minister to do so, we will have to put this amendment to the vote.
I would like to join in the appeal by Deputy Connolly to the Minister to consider the case of men under £250. After all, men working for the Dublin County Council find deductions are made. Men who are fortunate enough to be in receipt of £550 are quite capable of looking after themselves, but I appeal to the Minister to accept the offer made by Deputy Connolly, in so far as it applies to those in receipt of £250.
I cannot agree to any differentiation between one section of the pensioners and another.
Surely the Minister admits there is a big difference between men in receipt of 35/- a week and those in receipt of £550.
Lest Deputy Connolly or anyone else should think I was making the case on the basis of the man with over £550, I might take the trouble to read the Schedule for the benefit of Deputies who may not know the Schedule and to show that it will affect every one of them from A to K. The Schedule says:—
"Where the annual amount of the remuneration, pension, or allowance payable out of public moneys is—
|
A.—Less than £100 |
5% |
|
B.—Over £100 and not exceeding £150 |
10% |
|
C.—Over £150 and not exceeding £200 |
20% |
|
D.—Over £200 and not exceeding £250 |
30% |
|
E.—Over £250 and not exceeding £300 |
40% |
|
F.—Over £300 and not exceeding £350 |
50% |
|
G.—Over £350 and not exceeding £400 |
60% |
|
H.—Over £400 and not exceeding £450 |
70% |
|
I.—Over £450 and not exceeding £500 |
80% |
|
J.—Over £500 and not exceeding £550 |
90% |
|
K.—Over £550 |
100% |
I am afraid that some Deputies do not understand this question. For instance, Deputy Donnellan was talking about the "poor I.R.A. men who are receiving moneys from public funds. Therefore the number of I.R.A. men to be affected will be restricted.
How many?
I mentioned a few moments ago that the case which would likely have to be dealt with would be about 2,800. The cost would be in the region of £200,000 or £300,000.
How many come under A, B, C and D?
I could not say offhand.
The majority?
It would affect practically every man who received his pension at a later date than 1934 or the beginning of the pension scheme in 1924. For every year subsequent to those dates the amount would run up. This will not affect Old I.R.A. men in general. Those who will be affected will be, in the main, those receiving the larger amounts.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Division challenged.
On a point of order, there appears to be some slight misunderstanding which I should like to have cleared up. When the question was put, I understood the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to say: "The motion is not carried." I understand from some other Deputies now that what he said was "The motion is carried." If that be so, I called for the division under misapprehension.
If the Deputy had not called for a division, I presume some Deputy from some other side of the House would have done so.
No division was called for from any other side of the House.
The Deputy called for a vote?
I could not hear the Leas-Cheann Comhairle properly, and I thought he said "is not carried."
The mistake can be remedied. The difficulty can be solved by putting the question again.
Question again put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 27; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Tunney, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Christopher M.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Corbett, Eamon.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred H.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Séamus.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Connolly and Tunney; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Amendment declared negatived.
Amendment No. 3 falls with No. 1.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), lines 49 and 50, to delete "October, 1934" and substitute "April, 1944".
The purpose of this amendment is to delete the date, October, 1934, from which the amending Bill will start to operate, and to substitute April, 1944, for it. The intention is much the same as that of the previous amendment. It is to destroy the retrospective effect of the amending Bill, and all the arguments that have been adduced against the adverse effects, the impropriety and the injustice of retrospective legislation could be developed here to the same extent. As, however, the main points of the argument have been gone into on the previous amendment, unless someone else has a different viewpoint to put, I think very little more needs to be said. I feel the Minister should in equity, now perhaps more than on the previous amendment, reconsider his position. It is not the intention of these amendments to destroy the amending Bill or the principle of it—it is merely intended to preserve the property rights which we believe are vested in a number of beneficiaries, maybe 2,000 or maybe less, but the number is immaterial. It is held that these rights reside in pensions under the principal Act of 1924 and the Act of 1934. They believe that the effect of the amending Bill is to deprive them of these rights. We wish to stand between these pensioners and the Minister for Finance or his Department and any other section of the Government seeking to interfere with these pensions, particularly in the cases of those who are serving during the present emergency, and it is with that intention we have put down this amendment to delete October, 1934, and to substitute April, 1944.
This amendment is an exact replica of the amendment we have just dealt with. The one we dealt with would have made the Bill inoperative so far as the 1924 Act is concerned. This proposes to act similarly in regard to the 1934 Act, so I am not accepting it.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 5 falls with amendment No. 2. It has the same purport. Amendment No. 3 falls because it is consequential on amendment No. 1.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 4 to insert the following new section:—
4.—Nothing in this Act contained shall be so construed as to deprive any person of any right of appeal to the courts or otherwise conferred by any Act of the Oireachtas or otherwise enjoyed.
I felt that the Minister would accept this amendment. If he does there is no necessity to elaborate the arguments for it.
I am not accepting it.
I cannot understand why the Minister resists an amendment which has the intention of maintaining the rights of any person to go to the courts if he feels himself adversely affected. Surely, it is a denial of natural justice to a citizen of the country, particularly to a citizen who has given service, one who has created not only the Legislature which is passing this Act, but who has given permanence to the courts which are going to administer these Acts. Such a person, if he feels that he is deprived of certain rights, should not be denied by the Minister his right of appealing to the courts. The Minister's refusal to accept this amendment leaves me practically speechless. I cannot understand why he refuses to have inserted in this Bill a simple provision that nothing in it shall be so construed as to deprive a person of any right of appeal to the courts or otherwise conferred by any Act of the Oireachtas or otherwise enjoyed. I should imagine that this would be automatically included in any Act and that any Act without such a provision has no real validity in law. Surely the Minister does not intend to deprive a citizen of his ordinary rights? I would like to hear him on why he will not accept this amendment.
Deputy Connolly must be very simple if he thinks the Minister brought in the Act for any other purpose than to prevent people going to court to get rights which they may think they have, but which the Minister thinks they have not. This Act is to prevent me, for instance, going to court to get a right which I have been advised I have or had. It is to make sure that the Government is going to win no matter what happens. It is a bad principle, I feel, and one which should not be adopted by this Parliament. This right of retrospective legislation should not be given lightly to any Government. What is happening up to the present is that if there is something to the benefit of the Government and to the disadvantage of the citizen, the Government holds fast. But, if there is something to the disadvantage of the Government and to the benefit of the citizen, the Government takes a step like this to take it away by retrospective legislation. I think the Minister might accept this amendment, but I am not foolish enough to think he will. I know well that if he accepts it and if there is a law case, he will have to stand his ground the same as anybody else, and he may lose. They want to ensure by this Act that they will not lose. The Minister has told us that he has one set of legal advisers who assure him that he is right and another set of advisers who say that a case could be made. Therefore, he has brought in an Act to make sure that one set of advisers was right. I think that that is a bad principle and I am going to support the amendment. I feel that the Minister should reconsider the whole matter now.
I do not think there is anything more I can say on this question than I have already said. Retrospective legislation is in operation all over the world.
It is a bad principle.
It is often necessary, and in this particular case we deemed it very necessary to ensure that, as I have said already, the interpretation which has been given to the Acts over a long period of years and which has been left undisputed, will continue. That interpretation will continue to be operative.
Without accepting all the Minister has stated and what he has said on the previous section, I am willing to accept this principle of retrospective legislation. Although I am opposed to it, naturally, for the purpose of this argument, I would accept it, but I submit the Minister should not have the right to debar any citizen from appealing to the courts. Even if this amendment is defeated, it is quite obvious that this problem will lead only to a long legal wrangle. Even in law, you cannot deprive any person of his property rights by retrospective legislation. You may attempt to do so, but if we have an independent judiciary, as we are told we have, they, I think, will defend this from the point of view that it is ultra vires the Constitution, and that there is no power in law to deprive any citizen of the right to go to court with a grievance against any Department. I think it exhibits a bad point of view on the part of the Government to resist this amendment. For that reason I am glad it was put down. I thought it would be automatically accepted. It is merely an attempt to confer on a citizen the right he has already got under the Constitution of appealing to the courts when he feels himself aggrieved. The Minister says: “So far as I am concerned, you are not going to have it”—an attitude of heads I win, tails you lose. That is the idea exemplified in the resistance to this amendment. I think it is a bad principle to develop. If the whole world is going wrong, where does Ireland's missionary zeal come in?
Why cannot we show the rest of the world that we are somewhat different from them, that we do not crush down the applicants for mercy who come to our gates but hear what they have to say and put the Minister on an equal footing in the courts with the humblest applicant with I.R.A. service who may be in receipt of much less than £100 a year, and who is deprived of 5 per cent.? Such a person should stand coequal with the Minister in a court of law, with the right to argue his case. No matter what Government it is— because this Government may be only transitory or it may last for ever—the Minister must act in accordance with the Constitution because he is subject to it, and, therefore, nothing should be resisted which gives the ordinary litigant the right to appear in court and to have his case heard.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes, to a vote.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Davin, William.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- O'Leary, John.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
- Tunney, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Christopher M.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Corbett, Eamon.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred H.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Séamus.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Connolly and Tunney; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?
I would be glad if the House would give me the remaining Stages now.
Any objections?
Why not leave the next stage over until next week?
Some important objections have been made to this Bill.
It is quite possible that we may not be sitting next week and, in view of that, I would like to get the remaining Stages of this Bill now. Any delay would hardly make a difference, because I think Deputies have said all that has to be said on the matter. I doubt if further delay would serve any purpose.
Would a delay cause any inconvenience to these hypothetical litigants? Is the Minister pressing for the remaining Stages now? Does he think that it might have any bearing upon the law cases we have been told about?
There is no law case pending, and if any person desires to bring a case to the court it cannot be prevented by this Bill becoming an Act.
We are quite agreeable, then, to the remaining Stages being taken now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Now that the Minister has amended the Act in this particular way, I think he should take steps to amend it further. We are willing to give him the remaining Stages now in the hope that because of our reasonable attitude he, too, will be reasonable and that the Government also will be reasonable. It is very unfair, in the case of a person with a total yearly income as low as £50, to make a 5 per cent. deduction. I believe it was the intention of the Oireachtas that only where persons were re-employed in positions sufficient to give a reasonable standard of living should these deductions be made. The deductions were never intended in the case of small payments.
I ask the Minister to amend the Acts of 1924 and 1934 so that there will be no deduction from sums under £200. It is an extraordinary situation that one person can be in receipt of thousands of pounds in the year and there is no deduction while, on the other hand, if another person happens to be employed by a county council as a rate collector or a road worker, or employed as a messenger in this House or in Government Departments at a small salary, a deduction of 5, 10 or 20 per cent. takes place. That state of affairs should not be permitted, and the legislation should be amended at the earliest possible moment.
I should like to join in the appeal made by Deputy MacEoin. I ask the Minister to reconsider the categories in the Schedule and so do something to ease the burden for those people during the emergency period. Perhaps he will take into consideration the points I put before him with reference to the adverse effect of the granting of bonuses under Emergency Orders. Surely the intention of the bonus should be to relieve a man of some of his burdens and surely the increase to a man's income by way of a bonus should not militate against his pension? The pension at least should be free from any abatement. I think a good case has been made in that connection and it has reference only to the lower levels. I think the Minister will find that the amount accruing to the Exchequer through these abatements will not be very much.
I can assure him that this matter has been raised with the best intentions and not for the purpose of driving a coach and four through the legislation. We did not come into the House with any such intention. Our main anxiety is to safeguard the interests of those in receipt of small pensions, whose pensions would be adversely affected by the operation of the Schedule. We feel that the amending Bill deprives them of rights to which we honestly think they are entitled. I trust the Minister will give favourable consideration to our views. If he does so, I am sure he will receive the gratitude not only of the House and the beneficiaries under this measure, but of the country as a whole.
I appeal to the Minister on behalf of the members of the I.R.A., some of whom have only 3/6 a week and some of whom are in institutions or in the employment of local authorities, to give favourable consideration to the case that was put forward to-day.
There is always a difficulty about these matters, as most Deputies know, especially those who have been up against this sort of thing already. You can bring a figure to the limit or down to a certain level, but there is another figure so closely associated with it that people will come forward and express a desire to be included. The more you do of that kind of thing the greater the difficulty becomes. Now, I do not want to make any bargain with the House for giving me the remaining stages of this Bill to-night—
I am not asking the Minister to do that.
If the House does not care to give me the remaining stages now, I shall have to submit to its decision. I will, however, undertake to bring the remarks which Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Connolly and others have made with respect to the lower ranks set out in the Schedule, to the notice of the Government and to do whatever is possible in the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution. The Seanad will be notified accordingly.