Several amendments have been tabled to this measure and all the amendments aim at the further relaxation of statutory provisions relating to the suspension of military service pensions in the case of persons who are in receipt of other public moneys. Such relaxations naturally impose a charge. To increase further these relaxations is obviously an increased charge and it is not competent for a private member of the Dáil to move for a charge on public funds. Consequently, the only amendments in order are those over the name of the Minister.
Committee on Finance. - Military Service Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1945—Money Resolution.
On that point of order, I take it we have not dealt with the money resolution yet, Sir?
No; I wanted to make it clear in case I should not be in the Chair.
I just want to make the point on your ruling Sir, that some of the amendments that have been put down do not directly impose a charge upon public funds, but they do attempt to make provision that a person who is entitled under a particular Act to get a particular pension shall not have withdrawn as much money by abatement as the Bill as it now stands would withdraw. I submit that it could hardly be said to be a direct imposition on public funds.
Of course it need not be direct—any charge on public funds, direct or indirect. I think it is fairly direct in every case and I have examined every amendment.
Your ruling affects all the amendments?
All amendments except Ministerial amendments. If I may say so, of course that has been the established practice in this House since the House was founded and it could not be changed now without the House, in its wisdom, so resolving. It is not specially applicable to any particular amendment to this Bill; it is the established practice, which is law for the Chair.
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1945.
I should like to raise two points on the money resolution just by way of question which I had not an opportunity of raising on the Second Reading. There was a general feeling amongst a large number of people—I think it was expressed almost unanimously in the Seanad on one occasion—that this type of rebate on military service pensions should be completely wiped out; that the time had passed when it had served the purpose for which it was originally intended. I should like to ask the Minister what the Bill as at present drafted will cost, and what the cost would be if the rebate was entirely removed? The second point I should like to make is one which I thought might have been dealt with in the Bill. There is at present a discrimination between the way in which officers serving in the Army are dealt with, whether they are entitled to pensions under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act. Let us take a commandant serving in the Army at present, whether as an emergency commandant or as a regular commandant. If he is a person who is entitled to a military service pension under the 1924 Act, he does not get that pension; he simply gets his ordinary pay and allowances as a commandant. The pension that he would be entitled to under the 1924 Act is completely held in abeyance. A commandant, however, who is entitled to a pension under the 1934 Act gets his pay and allowances, but he also gets a pension under that Act abated to the extent to which the law as it stands allows it to be abated. That means that there is a discrimination between officers of the same rank and who are performing the same duties, the person who suffers the disability being a person who has longer experience in the Army than the other. As the Minister is wiping out some of the grievous anomalies by this Bill, I thought that he would have given some consideration to that matter, because it is a state of affairs that is invidious and ought not to stand. As the Minister is amending the situation somewhat now, I think the situation should be amended in respect of that.
I should like to support the suggestion of Deputy Mulcahy. As the Minister is aware, a number of officers—not very many—are affected adversely because they are in receipt of pensions under the 1924 Act. The Minister may say that the 1924 Act should not have been so framed that it would include officers who might subsequently be receiving an allowance or financial emoluments from public funds. But it is possible that when the 1924 Act was drafted a situation like the present emergency was not considered; that a number of officers—I do not think there are more than 100 affected by this— who would be serving in the same ranks and, in many cases, doing identical duties with others would have their pensions abated entirely because they come under the 1924 Act while other officers who are entitled to pensions under the 1934 Act draw their pensions during the emergency, even though they are serving under the same conditions, except that they are emergency and not regular officers. I think the Minister would do well to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to deal with this matter. The number of officers affected is not very large, but the Minister must realise that they have a definite grievance. In view of the attempt which the Minister is making to reduce the discrimination under the abatement provisions in the schedule, I think he should also bring the position of these officers into line.
I said in the course of the discussion last week that this Bill was as far as the Government were prepared to go. After that, I was able to induce the Government to amend the Bill in respect to the matters dealt with in the amendments which I am introducing. I want to assure the Deputies who have spoken, and any other Deputies who may like to speak on the subject, that such a suggestion will not be considered. It is not intended to amend this Bill in any respect further than I have indicated. The matters referred to by Deputy Mulcahy are matters which I suppose could not have been foreseen. The people who are in receipt of these pensions under the 1934 Act came into the Army in a certain category and it was not foreseen at the time that any person would be coming into the Army who would be entitled to receive benefits under the 1934 Act. If you like, it was a slip of drafting or something else; but I am not going to alter the position by putting all the other people on the same level. If anything were to be done, it would have to be done in the reverse direction. I do not propose to take any action in respect to it.
I asked the Minister what would be the cost of the present Bill as it stands and what would be the cost if the rebate was entirely removed.
The annual cost of the amendment contained in the Bill would run to about £30,000.
What would the abolition of the abatement cost?
This is a Bill which is falling every year. What would the annual cost now be if, instead of limiting the abatement in the way in which it is envisaged, it were wiped out completely?
About £50,000.
An extra £20,000, on a falling scale?
Yes, on a disappearing scale.
Resolution put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.