Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been ruled out of order.
Committee on Finance. - Military Service Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1945—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) The references to remuneration or to an allowance in sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act of 1924, and in the Third Schedule to the Act of 1924, as amended by sub-section (1) of this section, shall be construed as excluding references to—
(a) so much of remuneration or an allowance payable to any person as is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Defence by that person to have been necessarily expended by him in the performance of the duties in respect of which the remuneration or allowance is payable,
(b) any allowance payable to a member of the Gárda Síochána under an Order made under Section 12 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925 (No. 7 of 1925).
This amendment will cover the out-of-pocket expenses incurred in performing the offices which are not included in the remuneration for the purposes of abatement. I should say that, by a decision of the court some time ago, the Department was forced to abandon its practice of allowing pensioners, such as tax and rate collectors, expenses they necessarily incurred in performing the duties of their officers. As I considered that that inflicted hardship on those individuals, as it was not being abated in former times up to the period when this case was taken to court, I am bringing in this amendment now in order to rectify the position and leave it as it obtained previously.
Would this amendment cover, for instance, a manager of an employment exchange who has to provide an office or staff out of the amount paid to him?
It will cover all certified expenses. I cannot tell whether it would cover that case or not, but it will cover the out-of-pocket expenses of the people in question.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 13, to delete "Sub-section (1)" and substitute "Sub-sections (1) and (2)."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has given us some figures which show that the total increased expenditure incurred by the abatement proposals in the amending Bill will amount to £30,000 and he says that, if the abatement were abolished, it would cost £50,000, which would be reducing annually and, possibly, reducing from now on at a far faster rate than up to this. While the proposed amendment is a big improvement, I think the Minister, now that he has decided to go so far, should abolish the abatement entirely and give some opportunity to army officers, who will be retiring, to get jobs in particular posts without having their pensions abated.
As the situation is at the moment, any person who has a military service pension and who has been fortunate enough to secure an appointment with a company or a firm that is not subsidised or contributed to in any way from public funds, is entitled to draw the full pension. On the other hand, some officers—not all of them with large pensions but some of them who were officers in lower ranks—have got jobs under local authorities or under such bodies as the Irish Sugar Company, the Turf Development Board and the Electricity Supply Board. These officers have their pensions abated, as the particular bodies or firms to which they are attached are subsidised or contributed to from public funds. In some cases, due to the emoluments they get from the actual positions they occupy, some of these officers have had their pensions almost entirely abated. The maximum pension for a commandant is £290, for a major £340, for a colonel £400, and for a major-general £500. These rates, of themselves, are quite low and, if this amendment is passed, it will mean that a commandant will lose 10 per cent., a major 15 per cent., a colonel 20 per cent. and a major-general 30 per cent.
This situation is further aggravated by the retiring age. A number of these officers will retire before they might, in the normal way, reach promotion to a higher rank. Very few have retired at the highest rank, except a few members of the Defence Council. Some of them will retire at a lower rank than that which they could hope to reach, because of age. They are prevented from getting the full pension, because of this unfair abatement clause schedule. I suggest to the Minister, without going into the reasons now why these pensions were awarded, that as the amount is small, and as he has admitted it is getting smaller every year, and as a number of these officers will die off and the number will become smaller very quickly, he should consider bringing in an amendment, on the Report Stage, withdrawing entirely the abatement clause in the Bill. He realises that, in the near future, a very large number of army officers, particularly those old officers, will be demobilised and their services entirely dispensed with, as they will have reached the retiring age.
These Acts—particularly the 1924 Act—are operating unfairly on these men and operating unfairly on particularly on those who got jobs where public funds were involved. They see fellow-officers who were fortunate enough to get work elsewhere, or who were fortunate enough to retire at an earlier age and were, in consequence, able to get into business or get into a better financial position, possibly because of their youth, reaping the rewards of their early retirement. These men, who have sustained the Army over a long period and who have given long and useful service, are put in an invidious position, and I suggest to the Minister that he should make a further effort and wipe out the clause entirely.
I also would urge the Minister very sincerely to make some concession to these old-time volunteers. I am pleased to state that, in urging this on the Minister, I am urging the nearest thing to a unanimous demand that we ever heard in this House, as judged by the Second Reading debate. Any Deputies who spoke, irrespective of Party, urged the Minister to reconsider this penal levy on people whose services were given to the State. Now, one could understand the Minister's desire to keep on some kind of a levy if it were a levy or deduction from pension based on a person's income. If anybody with an income of £600 a year were deprived of so much of their pension, that would be understandable; and it would mean giving pensions to those who needed them most and making a deduction from those who needed them least.
The Revenue Commissioners are in a position to make a return of the income of every pensioner. If the Minister made a percentage reduction on all pensions, starting at 1 per cent., with 2 per cent. on the next £100 and 3 per cent. on the next £100, there would be a substantial gain to public funds and there would not be a penal tax, a penal levy, a punishment, on people whose services are given to the State rather than to independent firms outside. What is being perpetrated under this Bill is that a person, not in State service, may have as income a salary of £10,000 a year and the State pays that person a full pension; but if a person in the State service has a salary of over £300 a year, then there is punitive action in the sense that we put a penalty on that person for serving the State. I do not think there is any defence for such punitive action against people who elected to serve the State.
The Minister may hark back to the parent Act. Every one of us can see the reason why, in 1924, these stoppages were laid down. The State was just being formed. All the services of the State had to be equipped. It was a time when public attention, public consideration, was being given to people who had pre-Truce records and, whether it was a Government appointment or a local appointment, everybody with a pre-Truce record would be lined up in a queue demanding appointments, claiming positions, on account of his pre-Truce service. To meet that exceptional state of affairs there was a very bíg inducement laid down in the parent Act to encourage people to go out into the commercial, industrial, professional and agricultural life of the country rather than seek State employment.
That was a temporary phase in the history of the country and originally this penal clause was meant to meet that perculiar situation that arises only once in every country and never is repeated. But yet, apparently, just because a remedy was created to meet a temporary Government embarrassment, that levy is to continue for all time. Honestly, I do not think there is any defence for it. I think the mere fact of introducing this Bill is an admission that an injustice is being done. This Bill, in effect, is merely a measure to reduce the injustice. That is not the way for a Government to face up to its responsibilities. If the system is unjust, then an amending Bill should be introduced to scrap that system. If stoppages are required, if the State cannot afford this extra £20,000 for men the best part of whose life has passed, if it is a case of the £20,000 being an obstacle, then I think the fairest thing would be to introduce an amending Bill providing that so much will be taken off everybody's pension for every £500 a year of income they may have. I believe that 1 per cent. would collect as much money by that scheme as 10 or 15 or 20 per cent. would under this scheme.
I most strongly protest against those who elected or were selected to serve the State being marked for special punitive action. I do not really think that there is any defence for it beyond this, that a precedent was created 20 years ago. I was anxious to put forward an amendment proposing that the stoppages begin with an income over £500, but that amendment has been ruled out of order on the ground that it was proposing increased expenditure. As a matter of fact, it does not propose increased expenditure; it proposes that the State takes less out of the pockets of certain people. It is perfectly in order for any Deputy to put down an amendment to the Finance Bill that the income-tax be reduced and I suggest my proposal is just the very same. The force of one amendment would be to urge the State to take less out of the pockets of the individual income-tax payer; my proposal, if passed here, would urge the State to take less out of the pockets of a few very highly-deserving people.
As Deputy Cosgrave said, we are reaching a point in the history of the Army when this continued stoppage is a very serious thing. We have, in our service pension scheme, provision made that officers under a certain rank will be compulsorily retired from the Army at a very early age. I think that scheme is a copy of other service pension schemes where the conditions are quite dissimilar. At the time our Army was built up, the men at the very top were very much the same age as the lowest-ranked officers. The result of that was that there was no opportunity of promotion. It was not a case of a man not doing his job properly or not having sufficient ability; the fact was that the men over him were quite as young as he was and there was no opportunity of promotion.
In other armies it was customary to lay it down that a man of a certain age but still of junior rank would be compulsorily retired, the reason being that he was not a successful officer as there were opportunities for promotion. We have adopted that rule and applied it to our Army, not because the men were not able or successful officers, highly efficient in every way, but just because the vacancies were not there to promote them, and in the next year or two we are turning a lot of people out at 45— very deserving people who have given at least 20 years' service to the State.
With most married men the age of 45 is the peak point of expense. It is just the particular period when their children are growing up, when college fees and other moneys have to be found, when the children have to be launched in life. That is the time when we will carelessly and thoughtlessly turn out hundreds of officers and, if they manage to get any appointment, directly or indirectly, under the Government, we will lock up the pensions they have so well earned by giving to the State the best years of their youth. I do not think that is really defensible and I will ask Deputies who may not be as free as I am to advocate a course here in public, at least to use their influence between this and the Report Stage and to urge on the Government the advisability of doing the fair thing, in so far as they can.
From my recollection of the figures given by the Minister on the Second Stage, the difference between going as far as this Bill proposes and going the whole hog, completely wiping out stoppages, would amount to £20,000 per annum, less income-tax. Let us remember that if the stoppage scale is removed completely, then the higher salaries in the main will be affected and, with higher salaries, as we all know, the bulk of what is given by one hand—or 50 per cent. of it—is taken back by the other, so that that figure of £20,000 is more apparent than real. Probably, in practice, it would represent extra State expenditure in the neighbourhood of £13,000 or £14,000 for a very short number of years. The average age of the people affected would probably be in the 50's, between 50 and 55.
That particular set of people have, in the main, been subject to extensive or total stoppages of their pensions in the last 20 years. Any of us can calculate the fine, the financial penalty, which has been imposed on people with even a comparatively small pension of £50 to £100 a year over the last 22 years. In another group of cases, it applies to the last 11 years. Surely these people have been sufficiently punished financially for giving their services to the State and the public authorities without pursuing them to the grave. The £20,000, or less, as it may be, is a very rapidly diminishing figure. All the people affected are elderly. They are dying off daily and their number is reducing rapidly. It is not a sum about which we ought to be divided when there is a united demand to have justice done.
We have cat-sparring now about a matter of £20,000 and probably before a month is out millions will be voted, and we will not bother as to the difference between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000; we will merely get at the nearest round figure. But yet when it comes down to individuals, to individuals who in their own way and in their own time were pioneers, individuals who were outstanding, the people who made it possible for us to be either generous or niggardly in an Irish Parliament, these people are to be penalised. And penalised for what? For continuing to serve the State after it had been established. I cannot say that too often— that the injustice in this is the case of two men who served the State equally and who got equal pensions, but one of whom is out in industry earning £10,000 a year and getting full pension, while the other continues to slog along serving the State and getting a reduced pension because he serves the State.
None of us heard in the Minister's Second Reading opening or closing speech any defence for continuing that fine, for continuing this financial penalty on people for State service and for continuing that penalty particularly in view of the age of these people. I again urge the Minister to consider the point he will be reaching in the Army in the next year or two. He told us that he is taking on 700 new officers. He will be pushing out a very considerable number of old officers, if his scheme holds, at a comparatively young age. Having pushed them out, the majority of these men, with 20 years' administrative experience, experience of control but no professional qualifications and no business experience in the ordinary way, will be seeking some form of employment with the various local authorities. They are pushed out, as I say, at the peak point of expenditure for them and their tiny pensions are to be reduced. Every call of justice from all sides of this House— the Minister has heard various Deputies speaking with one voice— demands that now, 21 years after the passing of the original Act which was introduced at a time when there was a very good case for stoppages, it is time to consider the advisability of remitting the stoppages entirely.
Without looking a gift horse in the mouth, I think it would be true to say that the Minister's amendment is merely a gesture of giving something, which, in fact, gives nothing. Surely it would be an unknown concept of public finance to tax a person on the expenses of his office. Even the Revenue Commissioners would never dare to suggest that they should tax a man on the expenses incurred by him in his office or his public duty, and what the Minister proposes by way of amendment is that he will not make deductions from pensions in respect of expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of a man's duty. That may be a concession as against what was in the original Act, but it is the bare minimum. If the Minister is not prepared to go the whole distance and remit these stoppages, I ask him at least to consider between now and Report Stage, in consultation with his colleagues, the advisability of commencing the stoppages at a salary of £500, and then carrying on according to the scale of stoppages outlined for each extra £100.
I should like to support the representations made to the Minister by my friends, Deputies Cosgrave and O'Higgins. It would be far better if the Minister agreed to abandon the abatement sections completely. The amendment proposed by the Minister will be welcomed by many in the service of the State and public authorities because it removes to a certain extent the injustice of abatement. It will particularly be welcomed by the Guards who, for some considerable time past, have made the case that, when abatements were made, only their basic pay should be taken into account and that allowances which they get should not be taken into account. They consulted senior counsel, who advised that, in making abatements on allowances, the Government were not acting in accordance with the law as it stood. The Guards could have brought their case to court, but they refrained from doing so. They relied on the Minister to redress their grievances and the confidence they placed in the Minister is now shown to have been completely justified. The Guards, I know, will greatly appreciate the amendment, but I think it would be much better if the Minister again considered the matter, and, instead of going a certain part of the journey towards doing justice to these people, agreed to go the whole way and repeal entirely the sections providing for these abatements.
I suggest to the Minister that it would be very unfair to abate the pension of a man who had given long service to the State. Most of these pensions are very small, and the men concerned find it very hard to make a living. Many of them have big family commitments, and have had to try to make a start in life when they had reached middle age. I would ask the Minister to respond to the unanimous wish of the House that this abatement clause should be wiped out altogether. I hope he will see his way to do that.
I desire to add my voice to the appeals which have been made to the Minister to abandon altogether the abatement clause which he is still hanging on to in a substantial measure in this amending Bill. I am prepared to concede at once that the amending Bill is a considerable improvement on the 1924 and 1934 Acts. We can gain nothing by blinding ourselves to that fact. Still, I think that the Minister is trying to defend something which he knows it is not easy to defend. What is being done here is this: you are setting up a scale of pensions for persons under the Military Service Pensions Acts, and you are saying to certain persons legitimately entitled to pensions—their entitlement to them has not been questioned by anybody—that if they work for the State, then even though they are entitled to a pension from the State, the State will get back a portion of it in the form of a special levy which will be imposed under the powers conferred in this amending Bill, just as power to do so was conferred in the 1924 and 1934 Acts.
The Minister may say that he is not imposing an abatement provision in respect of all classes of pensioners. But take the case of the two people instanced by Deputy O'Higgins, both entitled to military service pensions and both awarded pensions. One says he will go out into the world, take up a profession or go into industry or commerce or even into the black market. While so engaged he can get any income he likes, and there is no question of his pension being abated. The other person says that he will go into the State service and will conform to the exacting standard of rectitude required from State servants. He says that he will put up with the low remuneration which is to be got in the State service in return for, perhaps, a sometimes illusory security. The Minister says to the first person who goes into industry or commerce or into the black market: "You can have your full pension and gather in as much as you can from your normal business activities, but if you go into the State service and work there for half the amount that you can earn outside, then take notice that I will get after your pension." How can the Minister defend that? One man goes into the State service and works for £500 a year; another man goes into industry or commerce, or takes up a profession and earns £2,000 a year and at the same time gets his full pension. The man in the State service with £500 a year suffers an abatement in his pension.
I think that I would be misjudging the Minister entirely if I thought that he had any enthusiasm for defending a principle of that kind. In matters of this kind the Minister may just be the instrument of the Government. I suggest to him, knowing that this is not a principle that he would defend—I feel sure that he cannot have his heart in defending it—that he might, in view of the appeals which have been made to him from all sides of the House, his own included, undertake to discuss the matter further with the Government with a view to withdrawing this abatement section entirely. The cost of doing so would not be considerable. These pensions are not going to be a continuing liability on the State. One has only to read the daily newspapers to see how fast the State's liability in respect to this type of pension is diminishing. I feel sure that all sides of the House would gladly face up to the position of defending the additional public expenditure which would be involved by the abandonment of a principle which, I think, is morally indefensible, and which is singing out a small class of people for a form of taxation which is inequitable from every point of view.
I have no objection to do what Deputy Norton has suggested, and that is to bring to the attention of the Government the remarks which have been made in the House. I must say, in respect of Deputy O'Higgins, that his speech astonishes me. The Deputy has been a member of the House since, I think, 1929. I do not think I would be doing him a wrong if I suggested that the first time he ever raised his voice in respect to this matter was when I introduced this amending Bill. The circumstances which exist at the present time existed in the time of the former Government. Deputy O'Higgins spoke about age limits. I do not know how he dragged them in because, honestly, I do not think they were relevant to the debate. But even the age limits which he discussed in respect to the retirement of military officers have existed since 1924, so that if there was any hardship in respect to men retiring at the age of 45, 48 or 51, or whatever it may be, the hardship was just as bad in the days of the former Government, which the Deputy supported, as it is now.
We were not up against it then.
Every person who entered into a contract with the State by entering the Army did so with his eyes wide open, and I am sure fully understood that if he did not reach a position higher than the particular rank which he had attained when he was retiring he would have to retire at that age. There is no change to-day from what the position was in the time of the former Government and, therefore, I cannot see what point Deputy O'Higgins is making.
Deputy Norton has spoken about the principle in this matter and so has Deputy O'Connor, but Deputy O'Higgins is not worrying about the principle. There is no principle involved in this as far as Deputy O'Higgins is concerned because the Deputy has an amendment on the Order Paper which would still exclude a number of people.
I am trying to meet the Minister.
The Deputy is still prepared to exclude a large number of people. In other words, he is still in favour of abatement.
No. That was after the Minister's Second Reading speech when he said definitely that he would not wipe out the thing.
I know that the Deputy can get out of anything, but we have it there in print that the Deputy would be prepared to agree to it if I was prepared to accept it.
Because you have already said that you would not consider it.
Whatever views I may have in regard to the principle involved in this, I have done this much anyhow: I have conceded to the request of the Conference of the Old I.R.A. They did not ask me to wipe out the Schedule. They asked me to amend it in a certain way, and I have amended it practically in the manner in which they asked. I am not going to read into their minds, but I am going to assume that they are satisfied that persons in receipt of public moneys, above a certain scale, are entitled to have some abatement made in their pensions. I presume it was a feeling of much the same kind that was in the mind of the former Government when they decided to abate pensions in respect of employment given to individuals who had pensions. I can only presume that the mind of the Conference was running on somewhat similar lines, and that the members of it did not see anything very wrong in some pensions being abated. As Deputies will see from the Bill, there is no abatement where the amount does not exceed £250.
I am not going to accept any suggestion that the officers of the Army or any section of the officers of the Army should be in any different position from any of the ordinary pensioners. Any of those men who are receiving pensions from public funds will, if this Bill goes through, have their pensions abated to whatever extent they should be abated by reason of the amount of money they are receiving from public funds. I do not see that I should be asked to differentiate between one class and another. I certainly will not do it. All I am offering to do is to bring to the attention of the Government the remarks that have been made here in respect of the abatement of pensions. I am prepared to under take that.
The Minister stated that he would not differentiate between one class and another. Surely that is exactly what we are doing. That is what was done in the 1924 Bill, and in the 1934 Bill, and that is what is being done in this amending Bill. We are differentiating between the person earning wages or salary from the State or local authority as against the person earning a very much larger salary in any other walk of life. As far as I listened to Deputy O'Connor, Deputy Norton, Deputy Cosgrave and other speakers, on this stage and on the Second Reading, it is that discrimination against individuals that is objected to. The Minister has said that a scheme of abatement of pensions has been on the stocks since 1924 and that a voice was never raised against it before. The Minister understands parliamentary procedure as well as I do. He understands that, when a Bill becomes an Act, except there is an amending Bill before us it cannot be debated or discussed here. The amending Act of 1934 was an Act to give the same scale of pensions for the same service to those who were opposed to the National Army in 1924 as to those who served in the National Army. That was not an occasion for raising the question of abatement in pension. This is the first opportunity we have had. The Minister's remarks, in so far as they were specially aimed at myself, applied to every Deputy who has joined his voice with mine in urging reconsideration of the Minister's decision.
Those officers who are retiring at the age of 45 may have been in the scheme in 1924—I think it was never very definitely fixed until the scheme introduced just prior to the Minister's time—but it is also true to say that, when an officer is 25 or under 30, although he sees that if he has not reached a higher rank than that of captain by the time he reaches 45 he will be compulsorily retired, it is not real to him until he reaches the age of 45, and there is always the hope that there will be sufficient vacancies to allow promotion. But on the last occasion when the Minister referred to the Army in this House he told us that he was proposing to take on 700 new officers, and at the same time those satisfactory officers who gave efficient service but are still of captain's rank or lower are to be compulsorily retired on reaching 45 years. Surely this is an occasion when the whole thing lights up afresh and anew, and anybody conversant with the situation and particularly with the acute stage we are reaching this year and next year would be failing in his duty if he did not call attention to it. When the bulk of those officers had 15 or 20 years to go, it was quite a different situation, and well the Minister knows it.
I do not know how this is relevant to this Bill. I do not know how the Deputy is bringing in all this matter of the Army on this particular Bill.
If the Minister does not know, I cannot see how he expects anyone else to know, because I am merely following the Minister. I made a casual reference to the retiring age. The Minister made a fairly lengthy statement on it. He traced it back to the time of the flood. He went into history in order to answer that casual reference of mine. The custodian of order in this House does not happen to be either the Minister or myself. It is the Chair. Any time I am called to order by the Chair, I will obey. Meantime, I will make my own speech and not the speech laid down for me by the Minister.
The Minister says that he does not want to discriminate, but as I have already said there is a number of officers who are suffering discrimination inasmuch as they are entitled to pensions under the 1924 Act, but because they are serving at the moment they have their pensions abated. Officers of similar rank and similarly situated in every way except that they are drawing their pensions under the 1934 Act are not having their pensions abated. The Minister must realise that there is definitely a difference there, and, while it does not affect many officers, it is a source of real grievance to them. I am glad the Minister has accepted the suggestion that he should bring this matter before his colleagues. In the Seanad in March of last year he said that he came to the conclusion that the only remedy would be to remove the Schedule completely, but he did not think the Dáil or the Seanad wanted to do that. "Indeed," he said, "I do not think it could be done." So far as the Dáil is concerned, the Minister has representations from all sections that they are in favour of removing the Schedule completely. So far as the Dáil is concerned we guarantee to accept the responsibility if the Minister will remove it, and I imagine the Seanad will be prepared to do likewise.
There is one point on which I should like to ask the Minister for guidance. Has he done anything about the pensions of the Old I.R.A. men who had pensionable service, but who, because they remained in the Army instead of leaving for a week or two and getting their I.R.A. pensions, are not getting any benefit from the I.R.A. pensions, even though they may leave the Army in a couple of months' time? This is a Bill to amend the Military Service Pensions Act. I communicated with the Minister several times about I.R.A. men who remained on in the Army, and are today certain that they will be demobilised shortly. They were entitled to I.R.A. pensions all during that time, but did not get them. Will the Minister do anything for those men? I would ask his guidance on this matter or the guidance of some members of the House who may have more details than I have. Will the Minister do anything for those I.R.A. men? I understand there are only about 50 of them coming out—who got no benefits, and who, after their service in the I.R.A. and over 20 years' service in the Army, feel very much aggrieved because they have got no benefits from the I.R.A. pensions. Perhaps the Minister would give me some guidance on the matter.
In regard to this section, there is one point which I should like to have cleared up to my satisfaction. The Third Schedule says: "Where the annual amount of the remuneration, pension, or allowance payable out of public moneys does not exceed £250," and so on. When the amount of the remuneration that the pensioner receives from public funds is being calculated in the Department of Defence, will the amount of the service pension be added to the amount received by way of salary, or will the abatement take place on the amount of salary only? Will a service pension or any other pension of which such a person is in receipt be left out of consideration?
It has been explained that the abatement is in respect of the basic salary only.
Does the Minister not propose to reply to my point?
I have fully replied to the Deputy by correspondence.
Yes, by correspondence. Members of the I.R.A. serving in the Army asked several members of this House, including members on the Ministerial benches, to raise the matter. When I look around, I find that some of those who promised to do so are not here. A grave injustice is being done to those men and, now that there is a Bill before the House to amend the military pension law, I ask the Minister to see that justice is done. I have letters here showing that, in some cases, men have lost up to £400 because of their continuous service in the Army. They served continuously, instead of leaving for a temporary period, claiming the I.R.A. pension, getting paid it and re-joining. The Minister must recognise that there is an injustice being done, and I ask the House to remove that injustice.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) The references to remuneration or to an allowance in sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1934 and in the Third Schedule to the Act of 1934, as amended by sub-section (1) of this section, shall be construed as excluding references to—
(a) so much of remuneration or an allowance payable to any person as is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Defence by that person to have been necessarily expended by him in the performance of the duties in respect of which the remuneration or allowance is payable,
(b) any allowance payable to a member of the Gárda Síochána under an Order made under Section 12 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925 (No. 7 of 1925).
The same remarks apply to this amendment as to the former amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, line 1, to delete "sub-section (1)" and substitute "sub-sections (1) and (2)".—(Minister for Defence.)
The Minister said that he would place the views of the House before the Government in regard to an earlier section. Will that apply to this section?
To the Schedules generally.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 7th November.