Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Oct 1945

Vol. 98 No. 3

Military Service Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1945.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill deals with the relaxation of abatements of military service pensions in respect of persons in receipt of any remuneration, pension or allowance payable out of public moneys whether provided by the Oireachtas or out of the Central Fund or by means of the poor rate or any other rate imposed by a local authority. About 18 months ago, I had the task of introducing a short Bill to make clear that a pension was subject to abatement not from the date it was granted but from the date from which it commenced. During the course of the debate on the Bill, many Deputies urged that the persons on the lower end of the abatement schedule should be relieved, and it was suggested by various members that there should not be any abatement at all below the figure of £250. On the final stage of the Bill, I said:—

"I will 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."

Later, in April, 1944, when dealing with the Army Pensions Estimate, I said:—

"I have carried out my undertaking. I have brought it to the attention of the Government and the Government has set up a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet to examine the matter. The matter is at present under discussion and will in due course be referred back to the Government for their attention."

The decision of the Government is now incorporated in Sections 2 and 4 of this Bill. It abolishes all abatement of pension in respect of receipts from public moneys up to £250, and the ceiling for total abatement is raised from £550 to £1,000, all intervening receipts enjoying a proportionate reduction.

Comparing the old Schedule with the new, the following is the position:—

						Old Schedule.	New Schedule.
Where Receipts are:—
up to	£100					5% abatement.	No abatement.
Over	£100	and not exceeding	£150	10% abatement.	No abatement.
,,	£150	,,	,,	,,	£200	20% abatement.	No abatement.
,,	£200	,,	,,	,,	£250	30% abatement.	No abatement.
,,	£250	,,	,,	,,	£300	40% abatement.	10% abatement.
,,	£300	,,	,,	,,	£350	50% abatement.	15% abatement.
,,	£350	,,	,,	,,	£400	60% abatement.	20% abatement.
,,	£400	,,	,,	,,	£450	70% abatement.	25% abatement.
,,	£450	,,	,,	,,	£500	80% abatement.	30% abatement.
,,	£500	,,	,,	,,	£550	90% abatement.	40% abatement.
,,	£550	,,	,,	,,	£600	100% abatement.	50% abatement.
,,	£600	,,	,,	,,	£700	100% abatement.	60% abatement.
,,	£700	,,	,,	,,	£800	100% abatement.	70% abatement.
,,	£800	,,	,,	,,	£900	100% abatement.	80% abatement.
,,	£900	,,	,,	,,	£1,000	100% abatement.	90% abatement.
,,	£1,000					100% abatement.	100% abatement.

The effect of this change in Schedules is as follows:—

1. In the category up to £250, 2,004 pensioners will no longer suffer any abatement and the cost to the State will be about £10,751.

2. In the category from £250 to £550, 843 will get a relaxation in the degree of abatement, and the cost here will be about £16,857.

3. In the category from £550 to £1,000, 141 persons hitherto suffering total abatement will now get a partial relaxation at a cost of £2,274.

The annual cost of this revised Schedule of abatements will thus be about £30,000.

Finally, another section of the Bill (Section 3) amends a drafting error. Section 2 (2) (a) of the 1934 Act deals with cases of deportation under various Acts and Regulations, but it fails to mention the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914. A case has been found in which an injustice is being done to a claimant through this drafting omission, and in this Bill we are seeking to remedy it.

Dr. O'Higgins

This Bill will, I think, be, on the whole, generally acceptable. It will be regarded by most people as a step in the right direction but a very timid step. The Minister gave us an outline of the Bill but he did not refer in any way to the circumstances surrounding the parent Bill, circumstances which demanded the penalising stoppages in respect of persons who went into the service of the State. The parent Act was passed 22 years ago, just when this State had been born. A very big army was being demobilised and small pensions were provided for those who had army and pre-Truce service. It is clear to anybody who thinks back that virtually 90 per cent. of those with pre-Truce service would have been demanding State employment. The scheme of stoppage of pension was designed — it was a very reasonable and sensible, if not essential, step at the time — to induce those men with pre-Truce service to seek a career in the industrial, professional, agricultural or commercial sphere rather than swell the number of those waiting for State employment. That was 22 years ago.

After the change of Government, an amending, or extending, Bill was brought in to give the same pension, on much the same grounds of service, to those who were excluded from the previous Act. Naturally, in order to do equal justice, the penalties imposed upon those who went into the service of the State were continued in the second Bill. At that time, you had the question of equality to consider. Now, we are reconsidering the whole question and we should not reconsider it in the light of whether those stoppages are reasonable or not. A principle should be decided upon first. The question at issue is: "Are we to place a penalty on those who serve the State — a penalty to continue throughout life?"

There is no point in discussing whether it is a 10 per cent., a 50 per cent., or a 100 per cent. deduction of pension. The principle that has got to be decided in equity and justice is whether it is sound to penalise those who elected to serve the State rather than serve other masters. That is the principle that arises. Let us take a concrete example. We find a man earning £250 a year in State employment and a brother with similar pre-Truce service earning, we shall say, £5,000 a year in a position other than State employment. Their services to the State pre-Truce were equal. The man with £5,000 a year now gets 100 per cent. of his pension, but the poor brother, with a salary of £300 or £250 in the service of the State, suffers a deduction. You can go up and down the scale and you will find that, irrespective of income, irrespective of wealth, the man with a fabulous income and fabulous wealth will get his full pension while the man in poorer circumstances who elected or was selected to serve the State has to remain under a disability, a continuing disability. The thing to be remembered is that these officers and servants of the State, officers and servants of local authorities, have suffered under that financial disability for the best part of 21 years. We are going to continue pointing the finger of scorn at, and imposing definite financial penalties on, anybody who helped to build the State, to make this country a free country and who afterwards continued to serve the State. I think that any one of us examining it as a matter of State policy and inquiring into the principle of the matter will find that there is no justification whatever for it.

My argument may be answered by saying that the cost will be so much higher. That is scarcely an argument but the cost is nothing like the apparent cost because the higher the income of the individual who gets a pension, the greater share goes in income tax and the greater portion in indirect taxation. Straight away, considerably more than a third will go in direct taxation and it is reasonable to assume that of the figures mentioned, one-half will go back to the State in one form or another. The figures put up by the Minister, I am certain, make no allowance for direct and indirect taxation. The picture painted is that the State would be poorer by £30,000 if it does the limited amount of justice outlined in this Bill. I think that is an entirely misleading figure. The figure should be given less a reasonable estimate of how much will go back straight away into the State coffers. Be that as it may, I did not get on my feet to argue about figures.

I got on my feet to ask that, after 21 years, ordinary justice be done to the people in receipt of these pensions. I think it is an unknown thing, except in our parent Act and in our amending Act, for a pension granted for service to be reduced on account of present service to the State while no reduction whatsoever is made if the income from employment outside State service reaches the limit. The simple case to examine is the case of the person receiving X pounds in the service of the State as against a person not in the service of the State with 20 times that income. The Minister has the responsibility of justifying the payment of full pension to the person outside the State service who has 20 times the income of the man in the State service, while reducing the latter's pension. I do not think it is reasonable and I do not think it is defensible. I do not think for one moment that it would meet with the approval of this Assembly, granted a free vote.

It is only a few weeks ago since we were honouring the memory of a great Irishman. When we were honouring that particular patriot's memory, there was no arguing about pounds, shillings and pence. Whatever the cost was, it was met freely and generously. If there is one kink in our character, it is that we cannot honour anybody until he is sufficiently long dead to be forgotten by most. Then a historian picks out the name and we all pay tribute. We promptly pay tribute for glorious failures in the past, for heroic failures in the past. Is it not about time that we started to pay a little tribute to heroic success in the present generation, that we made some little gesture of appreciation to the men who succeeded in establishing what generations before them had failed to establish — a free and independent State? When it comes to recognition of heroic success, then apparently we must meet it in a niggardly financial spirit, by trying to devise ways and means to deprive those in the service of the State of a reward to which they are justly entitled, but we give it with two hands to the wealthy person of unlimited income who is not in the service of the State.

As far as I understand the make-up of modern States, there is a general drive throughout the world to get the best brains and the keenest intellects into State service. Here we are apparently to continue for all time a financial disability and penalty on those who elect, or are selected, to go into the State service. I would ask the Minister between this and the Committee Stage to reopen with the Executive Council, and particularly with the Department of Defence, the equity of this whole question — to consider whether it is good State policy to continue the injustice of placing financial penalties on those who have served the State irrespective of income, while full pension is paid to those outside the service of the State irrespective of income. I would ask him to reconsider the question on the principle that there is no shred of justification for continuing these penalties, no matter how small. It is not statesmanship to say: "This is an injustice but we are reducing the injustice". The only defence for this Bill at all is on the ground that you are reducing the injustice or minimising it. That is not statesmanship and it is not a correct lead to give inside or outside Parliament. The responsibility is on the Minister and the Executive Council to decide whether a reduction in pension in these circumstances is or is not an injustice. If it is not an injustice, there should be no amending Bill. If it is an injustice, it is no defence to say: "We are reducing the injustice". These people, each in his own field, played their part in the last successful effort to establish this State.

The officers in the Department of Finance and any other Department who want to continue a financial injustice in respect of their income would not have been in a position to do that but for the efforts of the people whom we are continuing to penalise. I urge very strongly that the principle be further considered as to whether there should be a continuance of penalties in the case of those in the service of the State as against those outside the State service, as to whether it is a just thing to give full pension to a man with £50,000 a year outside the State employment, and to continue to make deductions in the pension paid to even the very lowliest State employee. There is a big principle raised here. The principle should be decided first. Then, if it were viewed and examined as to whether this Bill is not merely a Bill to reduce an injustice but at the same time to continue it to a lesser extent, I think the Bill would come in as a simple amending Bill, wiping out the curtailment tables in the parent Bill. Between this and Committee Stage, I would ask the Minister, very, very sincerely, to have it examined by the Government from that particular angle and I would invite the Minister, in private, to take the majority opinion of any Party in this House, and I think the majority opinion would be that it is now time to remit completely the financial disabilities placed on these old-timers in the last 21 years.

Mr. Hilliard

Listening to Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, one would think that the Party to which he belongs did nothing but justice to the men who fought for this country. His Party were in office for a number of years and they excluded from the pensions code the majority of the members of the Independence movement. There is one point that I wish to make in respect of this Bill. I am in agreement with the scaling down of the abatements on military service pensions because I believe that the people who work for the State and receive money from State funds are absolutely entitled to their full military service pension. When it comes to the calculation of a man's income under this code, I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the fact that a disability pension is also included in the calculation of the funds received by an individual from the State. I do not think it fair that the State should penalise an individual in respect of his disability pension. A disability pension, to my mind, is something different from a service pension and the fact that a man is in receipt of a pension under the Army Pensions Acts is an admission by the State that the man has lost his physical ability to earn his living. Therefore, such moneys should not be considered in the assessment of income for abatement under this code. Personally, I would be satisfied if that point were met.

Mr. Keyes

It is rather difficult to see what is the compelling reason for the introduction of this Bill at the moment. I do not know that there has been any general demand or outcry from any section of the public for this revision. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins says that it will partially remedy or reduce an injustice. I suggest that it will perpetuate and accentuate an inequality. Comparing the proposals in this Bill with the Acts of 1924 and 1934, we find that men who were in receipt of £100 suffered a loss of 5 per cent. and upwards, whereas, under this Bill, until a man is in receipt of over £250 from public funds, he suffers no reduction whatever in pension, and it is proposed that a man in receipt of £550 per annum may receive 50 per cent. of his pension. That seems to be very generous treatment to those concerned. Contrast that with the men of the Old I.R.A. in receipt of pensions from 10/- a week to 25/- a week and who are employed, for instance, as road workers, ushers, bank porters, or in any menial position. They will benefit to the extent of 30/- a year under the proposals in this Bill, whereas those in high positions, in receipt of high salaries or big pensions from public funds will be entitled to get 50 per cent. of their pension. I think the inequalities that have been evident in the two previous Acts are accentuated in the present measure. If there was any necessity for a revision, it should have been done on the basis of bridging, to some extent, the inequalities that have caused a good deal of friction.

The Bill, coming at this stage, is, to my mind, an anti-climax to another Bill that was introduced early this year by the Government, and it gives room for suspicion that, having excluded those people in whom the Government were not interested, they were going to be extra generous with the favoured few. It would appear to anyone who made a study of the tables that those who have got the goose will get another goose and that those who have not got the goose are completely and rigidly excluded, that those on the ground floor will remain there and those in the higher positions will have their positions immensely improved.

It is unnecessary for me to go into detail as to the type of people concerned with the higher scales, but I do think that if the Minister gives the matter careful and impartial scrutiny he will agree that the Bill will create a good deal of friction and unrest in the minds of the lower paid pensioners who are not getting an equitable deal under this Bill. If the position had been left as it was, there would have been something to be said for it, but this Bill will improve the lot of the top dog and will not improve, except to the extent of about 30/- a year, the position of men on very low wages who are in receipt of small I.R.A. pensions. If the Bill is to justify itself at all, I think that matter would call for the Minister's serious attention.

I should like the Minister when replying to give some information on the following points. I should like to know the number of persons in receipt of salary, remuneration or pension from public funds not exceeding £100, who will be affected by this Bill, the number of persons in receipt of over £100 and less than £150, and so on up to £250 to £300, who will be affected by this Bill, and then I should like to know the number of persons in receipt of £1,000 who will be affected by the Bill. These are really the interesting and salient points I am concerned with. I would be glad if the Minister would give some information as to the numbers concerned. I should also like the Minister to state the sums allotted to the different grades of pension and the total sum which is represented by this Bill. If that figure is disclosed, it would be interesting, in the light of my previous remark, to know where it is to be allocated and what number will benefit by that sum of money. I suggest, following the statement of Deputy O'Higgins, that you are reducing an injustice, but I repeat that you are perpetuating and accentuating an inequality in the present proposals.

Mr. Allen

Listening to Deputy Keyes you would come to the conclusion that he did not understand the principle of the Acts at all. It is obvious from his remarks that he scarcely understands what he is talking about. I am sure that if he had consulted the Leader of his Party, who is very anxious that such a Bill as this should be introduced, he would understand much better than he does what this Bill proposes to do. He talked about the men with small pensions and said that there was an injustice being done to them under this Bill. That is not so. The men with a small pension got the pension on the basis of the 1924 and 1934 Acts, according to the years of service they had. Whether they were earning 5/- per day or £5 per day, they got the pension originally on the basis of their service. That must be understood, because it is the basis of the whole thing. There may be men in highly-paid positions who have very small pensions. A man may be earning £1,000 a year and only have a pension of 5/- per week. Men with lowly-paid jobs, such as scavengers, or others with small salaries from local authorities are not the only men who have small pensions. I know a number of men who are in lowly-paid jobs who have large pensions and vice versa. There are men earning £1,000 a year who have very small pensions.

This Bill certainly will serve a very useful purpose. I have in mind a large number of men in the employment of local authorities with wages of from £2 to £3 a week who will benefit very much by this Bill. Then there is the Old I.R.A. man with a small pension, who probably had to apply for unemployment assistance occasionally, and even the small pension he was receiving was taken into consideration in assessing his means in connection with unemployment assistance. That was the greatest injustice that took place under the original Acts. Such men as these will be very much benefited by this Bill. No injustice is being done to men who have small pensions. As I said, they were given pensions on the basis of their service irrespective of their income at the time from any outside source.

Like Deputy O'Higgins, I am sorry that the Minister did not go further in this matter. I am one of those who believe that men who served this country in critical times and who made possible the setting up of this State and this House should be given the full pension to which they are entitled. A man in civilian life, even if he has a salary of £10,000 a year, can get his full pension but not a man who is in the service of the State or of a local authority. I cannot understand why in that case his pension should be cut down. Deputy O'Higgins is not quite accurate when he said that this was introduced originally because so many people were trying to get into the State service in 1924. I think this principle came down from the British, because they cut their army pensions or other pensions on the same basis when people enter the State service. I think that is how it originated. It is wrong that men who served the State in the Army should not be given their full pensions when the State sees fits to award them a pension for service in the Army. This Bill is a step in the right direction. It is probable that by other steps we will get to the stage to which we would like to get.

This is an amendment of the 1924 and 1934 Pensions Acts. I suggest to the Minister that he should have introduced a further amendment on the lines of the provision which has been made for the 1916 men who are unable to earn a livelihood. If those affected by this Bill are unable to earn a livelihood, they should be provided with pensions on the same generous scale as those provided for the 1916 men. I hope that will be done and I suggest to the Minister that this is an opportune time to do it. A great number of those who served this country from 1916 onwards are dropping out every day and their number is getting smaller day by day. A good number of them, although just beyond middle age, are unable to earn a livelihood. I hope the Minister will bring proposals before the Government to amend the law further and provide for those who are unable to earn their livelihood on the same basis as the 1916 men. I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction and I have no doubt that it will be passed by this House.

Mr. Cogan

In view of Deputy Allen's severe strictures on my friend Deputy Keyes, one requires some courage to raise any matter in regard to the interpretation of this Bill. There is one small matter, however, in regard to which I would like some clarification from the Minister. I understand that the abatements in pensions provided for in this Bill are based on the gross remuneration of the persons affected, the gross salary and allowances and so forth. On the face of it, it seems to me that there would be an inequality or injustice involved in that method of calculating the abatements, because it is obvious that one civil servant's gross income might be very little in advance of his net income. One particular civil servant might have very little out-of-pocket expenses in carrying out the duties of his office, whereas another officer might have very big expenses. Thus the man who would have very big out-of-pocket expenses would derive much less benefit from these abatements than the person who would have no expenses or very small expenses. There seems to be an inequality there, as between those two types of official, and if we want to be strictly fair — as I am sure the Minister is trying to be — the abatements should be based on net income and not on gross income. I am not quoting a very popular type of official when I quote the example of an income-tax collector, who has very high out-of-pocket expenses in carrying out the functions of his office, since he has considerable travelling to do and possibly has office rent to pay as well. If that man's abatement were based upon his gross income, it would be a very small abatement when brought down to his net income. On the other hand, there may be another type of official in a salaried position, who would have very little overhead or out-of-pocket expenses and who would get the full benefit of the abatement. I would like the Minister to explain why it was decided to base these abatements on gross rather than on net income.

Mr. Coogan

I would like to support the contention put forward by Deputy O'Higgins. There is a strong objection in principle to the method of abatement employed under the 1924 and 1934 Acts and in this particular measure. It is tantamount to imposing a means test on those who, by accident or otherwise, happen to have been employed in the State service after they had rendered military service in the forces of the State; whereas no such means test is imposed on recipients of pensions who go into business or other employment. A man may go into business and become a John D. Rockefeller or a Croesus and he can enjoy his full pension. A man may go into the State service and get a miserable salary, but he has to suffer an abatement in consequence of his being a State employee. In that respect, the principle is unsound and there is a good case for reviewing the whole measure in the light of what Deputy O'Higgins has said.

As I understand it, abatement was introduced in 1924, largely for the purposes of discouraging officers and men who were being discharged from the Army from looking to the State for future employment and to encourage them to go into business, into farming or the professions. No such condition of things exists to-day and I cannot see that there is any justification for a continuance of the system of abatement which was peculiar to the conditions obtaining in 1924. Since then the cost of living has gone up; the purchasing power of the £ to-day is certainly not half of what it was in 1924 and there is no analogy between a man in receipt of a pension of £200 in 1924 and the same man to-day. For that reason, I would seriously suggest that, if the Minister cannot accept the principle that there should not be any abatement, he should raise the ceiling to a higher level than that given in the Schedule to the Bill, in view of the cost of living having increased so considerably in recent years. The maximum which is free from abatement is £250, but that sum may be composed of salary, bonus and, perhaps, pension. I do not think it is at all equitable to impose any reduction in the case of a gross income of under £500 per annum, in view of the existing conditions and the high cost of living.

I would like to support Deputy Hilliard on the point he made as regards disability pensions. It is entirely unfair that a man should have his military service pension abated because of the fact that he is in receipt of a disability pension. That should not be included within the definition of pension for the purposes of abatement. It is a matter which we can thrash out on the Committee Stage and there is a good deal to be said for it. There are many cases of hardship where men in receipt of small incomes are in receipt of both pensions. Anything which they earned should be left to them. As Deputy Allen has said, these pensions were awarded on the basis of service and sacrifices made in the fight for freedom and they should be granted irrespective of the income of the person. It seems to me to be contrary to the principle of rewarding these men for national service that we should pay this money into their pockets and proceed forthwith to take it out again because they happen to be in the employment of the State.

Another matter which should be considered, and which may be raised on the Committee Stage, is as to whether the pension should not be based on the basic pay rather than on the gross pay. On reading the Schedule it would seem that the Department of Finance can take into consideration remuneration, pension or allowances of any kind. They can take into consideration the bonus, the basic pay or any rent or other allowance. I do not know what the word "allowance" covers, but it is a matter which will have to be clarified at a later stage. It might be better if the Schedule were restricted to the basic pay only of the recipient.

Mr. O'Connor

I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. I know he has taken a great personal interest in this matter for some time past and that, if he had a free hand, this Bill might have been introduced a considerable time ago. I welcome the Bill particularly as it does a measure of justice to the lower-paid classes of State persons, inasmuch as it removes the abatement in the case of salaries up to £250. We take that as an admission that, in those cases, it is wrong to make any abatement of pensions. The same principle should apply to all salaries and I can see no reason why the abatement should not be removed altogether. I have a feeling that that is what the Minister would like to do. The word that appeals to me most in this Schedule is the word "Nil" and I suggest that if that word were repeated right to the end, we would be doing justice all round. There seems to be no reason why a man employed in the State service should have abated the pension given to him for his service to his country.

I would recommend the Minister to clear up the point regarding the word "allowance" and to make clear what is meant by it. A civil servant may get travelling expenses, which might be taken into account in determining the abatement of his pension. The suggestion that the remuneration should be calculated by reference to the basic salary seems to be a good one and I think the Minister might consider it on the Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Leary

I welcome this Bill also, from the point of view of the men with a 3/6 pension, who will benefit. I knew cases where men had 6/- as unemployment assistance and when they got 6/- as an I.R.A. pension they were debarred from signing for the assistance. The Bill is long overdue. There may be some people who are in very privileged positions and who never will suffer, such as members of the Dáil. They can draw their pensions and salaries or allowances and are safe, but the workman who has a small pension for his service to the country and then a means test put against him is being wronged. That test should never have been introduced by any Government, when we hear so much talk about the fight for freedom and the sacrifices that were made. Workers took a prominent part in the fight for freedom and I would be inclined to think the workers suffered the most. When compensation is being paid, the claims of these men should get first consideration because they were the first to suffer.

I welcome the Bill, but I believe the Minister could go further. I am of the opinion that there should be no means test in cases where men are receiving small pensions. These are the men who need everything they can get, because they have small wages as well as small pensions. We should give every consideration to the cases of men who have not received pensions although they served the country well. They were turned down by the Government as being persons to whom the Act did not apply.

Mr. Everett

I wish to support the case put forward by Deputy Coogan when he suggested that there should not be a means test in cases where men are in receipt of small pensions. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to remove the means test in these cases. There are men who are receiving small pensions and they are debarred from receiving unemployment assistance. I have in mind the case of one man who gave good national service. He is drawing a certain salary, out of which £250 should be allowed in respect of income-tax and travelling expenses, but in the Army authorities' reckoning for abatement purposes they do not allow him that £250. They charge him on the gross amount and they thus deprive him of getting a pension.

I think the Minister should make every effort to remove such anomalies. Various suggestions have been put forward by Deputies and he should accept them. If not, I can see that as time goes on we will still have grievances in connection with Army pensions. I suggest that the time is now opportune to remove the grievances and anomalies that have existed through the years and the Minister should endeavour to give those who rendered service to the country the benefits to which they are entitled.

Mr. O'Leary

Would it be possible to ensure that a quorum is present in the House while we are dealing with this important measure?

Mr. Traynor

A number of Deputies who have spoken on this Bill have spoken in the usual rather generous manner to which we are accustomed. Deputy O'Higgins, in the course of his speech, said that if it were left to a free vote of the House, Deputies would undoubtedly agree to a complete list of abatements rather than a restricted one. I daresay that is perfectly true. The House, in my experience, is always prepared to be generous in respect of the handing out of money just as, on the other hand, it is always prepared to criticise what has sometimes been described as spendthrift expenditure. We cannot have it both ways and we should try to consider when these suggestions are being made that there are two sides to all these questions.

I suggest that I have met this case very fairly; in fact, I think I have gone as far as I was asked to go by the United Conference of the old I.R.A. organisations. But Deputies, apparently, are not satisfied with what these associations have put up to me as something that they would regard as reasonable. I think I can say without exaggeration that I have been even a little more generous than the United Conference asked me to be. That being so, I do not think that the House can grumble very much in respect of the measure which I am introducing. If my memory serves me correctly, I think I would be right in saying that when these appeals were made to me some 18 months ago no one suggested the complete wiping out of this Schedule, I will not be dogmatic in that connection, but I believe that that was the general opinion — that we should bring some form of relief to the lower-paid pensioners. I believe I have acceded to that request and I can assure the House that this measure which I have introduced is the limit to which the Government is prepared to go.

I do not see that it is necessary for me to discuss this measure at any great length. I shall endeavour to answer as far as I possibly can the questions that were put to me. Deputy O'Higgins talked about equity and justice. I would like to remind the Deputy that equity and justice existed from 1924 to 1934, just as it exists now, and I am not aware that Deputy O'Higgins or any of his colleagues expended any very great energy in attempting to bring relief such as I am bringing now. Why he stresses that equity and justice demand that this should be done now and it should not have been done before, rather surprises me.

As regards disability pensions, it is true to say that they are not abated, but if the individual who is in receipt of a disability pension is also in receipt of a military service pension, the military pension is abated in some small measure in conformity with the Schedule. It was the House decided that—I did not decide it; the House passed that, it is the law, and I have to administer it as such.

Deputy Keyes was anxious to know something about the numbers of people who would be involved in the abatements. There are 25 cases of people with over £1,000 a year who will not be affected. The total number of persons who will benefit by complete abatement is 2,004 and these will benefit to the extent of £10,751. There are then varying figures: 316 cases who will benefit at the lower scale, 10 per cent.; 197, 15 per cent.; 114 20 per cent.; 107, 25 per cent.; 58, 30 per cent.; and 51 at 40 per cent. The assessments are based on the total amount. I think Deputy Coogan was anxious to know this. It is on the cheque received by the individual that the abatement is made, and out-of-pocket expenses are not taken into consideration.

Deputy Allen said he would like something to be done in respect of those men who are not benefiting in the same manner as the 1916 men. At present, as the House is aware, 1916 men — those who are incapacitated and unable to earn a living — are receiving certain sums of money to the amount of, I think, £78 or £98 a year, with some allowances for children. I hope in the near future to be able to bring about a similar state of affairs in respect of the men of the later period, that is, men who would be referred to as having taken part in the Black and Tan campaign. The matter referred to by Deputy Everett is one he should take up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce rather than with me.

Mr. Everett

Could the Minister not make provision, in conjunction with the Minister for Education, for the earmarking of a couple of scholarships by local bodies for the children of I.R.A. men? The least which those of us on public bodies can do is to provide scholarships for these children.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th October, 1945.