Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1947-Motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

That the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1947, prepared by the Minister for Defence, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, under the terms of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act, 1932 (No. 26 of 1932), and the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1938 (No. 33 of 1938), and laid before the House on 28th May, 1947, be confirmed.

Before dealing with the explanation of the scheme, I wish to point out that the scheme as made by me and approved by the Minister for Finance differs in two respects from the copies of the scheme circulated to Deputies.

In the scheme as made and approved the figure and letter 9 (a) appear in Article 14, sub-Article (1) (b) after the figure 9, and in Article 42, sub-Article (3) (b) the words "and less than 21 years" do not appear.

Again, in the White Paper which has been circulated there are two obvious misprints which Deputies, no doubt, will have noticed for themselves.

In the paragraph dealing with Article 7, the figures "1924" should read "1934" and in the paragraph dealing with Article 8 the figures "1934" should read "1924". There was a transposition of the figures.

The principal features of this amendment to the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme, 1937, are briefly as follows:—

1. To provide an increase of 30 per cent. for the pensions, technically known as retired pay, of officers retired or retiring on or after 2nd September, 1946.

2. To provide an increase in the basic pensions for other ranks and at the same time to provide for the first time an additional pension of 7/- a week for married soldiers discharged on or after 2nd September, 1946.

3. To provide increased rates of gratuity for soldiers.

4. To provide increased rates of pension for the Army nursing service.

5. To provide special gratuities for existing officers of the naval service.

6. To provide added notional years' service in certain circumstances for officers on retirement.

7. To remove certain restrictions imposed by the principal scheme.

The 30 per cent. increase in the retired pay of officers is provided for in Article 14 (1) of this amending scheme. Deputies will note that the increase extends to every type of retirement covered by the scheme. Broadly speaking, the scheme visualises three different types of retirement according as (a) an officer retires in the normal course either after 20 years' service or thereafter on reaching the age for retirement prescribed for his rank by Defence Force Regulation, or (b) he has to retire compulsorily in the interests of the service or on grounds of ill-health, or (c) he may of his own volition wish to retire after completing 12 but with less than 20 years' service. Each of these three types of retirement carries a different scale of pension, but the 30 per cent. increase applies to all without exception.

The rates of pension for men discharged on or after 2nd September, 1946, with 21 years' service have also been increased. The increase in the basic pension is about 12½ per cent. but as we are now, for the first time, providing for a married pension of 7/- a week, the over-all increase is more than 60 per cent. The new rates of pension are provided in Article 22 (1) of the amending scheme and the married pension by Article 22 (3). In the principal scheme no increase in rates was allowed if a man continued in service beyond 21 years, but Article 22 (2) now provides that for every year beyond 21, he will be entitled to an extra 1/- a week within a maximum of 10/- a week. The increase in the basic rates as well as the additional married rates of pension will also operate in the case of soldiers who have 15 years' service or more but less than 21 years and who are discharged on grounds of disability. This is the effect of Article 24.

As regards the new rates of gratuity for soldiers provided by Article 26, it will be seen that instead of the old flat rate of £1 a year for each year of service irrespective of rank, the new scheme discriminates between ranks and also provides different rates within these ranks for men with service up to seven years, seven to 13 years and 13 to less than 21 years' service. Privates with up to seven years' service will be entitled to 30/- a year, corporals and sergeants to 40/- a year and higher non-commissioned ranks to 50/- a year for each year of service. If they serve beyond seven years, the rates will be 60/-, 80/- and 100/- respectively, and if they serve beyond 13 years and do not qualify for a pension, the rates will be 90/-, 120/- and 150/- respectively.

Articles 28 to 32, inclusive, and Article 40 of the amending scheme deal exclusively with the Army Nursing Service, and for the most part their effect is to redraft and amend in minor respects some defects in the principal scheme. Article 40, however, has also the effect of increasing the rates of pension payable to the sisters of the service. Under the principal scheme, a nurse was entitled after 20 years' qualifying service to one-sixtieth of her emoluments for each year of service, and her emoluments included her pay and allowances. The latter were, however, fixed at a rather arbitrary figure of £64, but in future they will be related to the actual ration, uniform and accommodation allowances payable at the date of her retirement. Further, after 20 years' service the retiring nurse will be entitled to a thirtieth instead of a sixtieth for each year of qualifying service served after 20 years.

Article 12 provides special gratuities for existing officers of the naval service who have been granted short-term commissions in that service. During the next five years it is intended to reorganise the service completely, and at the end of that time it is hoped that we shall be able to man the vessels with officers and men who have been fully trained in the new equipment in the interval. Meanwhile, we have asked the present officers to continue in the service for a period of five years in commissioned rank, with a special gratuity payable at the end of that period.

The principal scheme already empowers the Minister to add to an officer's actual service a number of years' (within a maximum of five) notional service where the officer with 12 years or more but less than 20 years' service was compelled to retire for any cause other than age, misconduct, inefficiency or mental or physical incapacity. The principle, therefore, already exists of adding notional years' service in cases where officers are forced to retire in the interests of the service. The present amending scheme extends the principle in two directions. Under Articles 6 and 35, the Minister can retire officers with 20 years' service or more, and add as many years (within a maximum of five) as will bring their service up to the service which they would have had on reaching the age prescribed for retirement in their ranks by Defence Force Regulations. Again, Articles 7 and 36 give power to add ten years' service in the special case of those officers who were specially commissioned mainly as area administrative officers in the old Volunteer Force in December, 1933, and February, 1934.

The principal scheme imposed certain restrictive conditions on the grant of both pensions and gratuities which experience has shown to be unnecessarily harsh in their application, and which, therefore, this amending scheme seeks to remove. In the case of voluntary retirement, for instance, an officer above rank of captain, even though he had the necessary 12 years' qualifying service, could not receive a pension unless he was commissioned before 1st October, 1924. No such restriction applied to junior ranks so that, in effect, they were in a privileged position regarding voluntary retirement. Articles 8 and 37 of the amending scheme remove the restriction, so that all officers are now, irrespective of rank, on the same level.

Article 10 abolishes another restriction which appeared unreasonable in its application. The principal scheme provides that a married officer on retirement with the necessary pensionable years' service is entitled to not only a pension or retired pay, but also to what is called a married officer's gratuity. This gratuity was looked upon as some form of resettlement grant, with the result that it was not payable where an officer died suddenly while serving, or where officers did not retire before death. In order, therefore, to qualify for the gratuity, sick officers were forced to retire on their death beds, and when the necessary form was put into their hands to sign, it was in many cases the first indication to them that there was no hope of recovery.

General Mulcahy

Must not all officers be in receipt of a lodging, fuel and light allowance or in quarters?

Mr. Cosgrave

Married quarters.

Mr. Traynor

Married quarters. It is clear that only a married officer can get the gratuity. If the Deputy gets that clear, the matter is easily understood. To avoid such tragic episodes in future, the amending scheme provides that the officer or the officer's family will be entitled to the gratuity whether he dies before retirement or not.

Another restriction abolished in certain cases is that which made the married officer's gratuity dependent on the officer being in receipt of lodging, fuel and light allowance for a period of not less than two years immediately prior to his retirement. This condition hit harshly two classes of officers —those who through illness over a prolonged period, were obliged to go on half-pay without allowances, and those who were placed on the half-pay list when seconded for special duty to other Departments of Government or to a local authority. The restriction, indeed, not only deprived the sick officer of the married officer's gratuity, but also in the event of his death deprived his widow and children of their pensions. This rather harsh restriction is now removed by Article 19 of the amending scheme. Article 9 also deals with this subject of lodging, fuel and light allowance, and provides that in the case of married officers promoted from the ranks, marriage allowance in non-commissioned rank will count for the purpose of the gratuity. It also gives the gratuity to two widower officers who had the allowance for many years but who lost it on the death of the first wife and after remarriage were retired before they had the necessary two years' qualification.

If an officer on retired pay succeeds in obtaining an appointment under the central or a local authority, then under the principal scheme, if the remuneration of the post equals or exceeds the amount of his Army pay at the date of his retirement, his retired pay ceases, and if it be less than that pay, he can only receive in retired pay the difference between his Army pay and his new remuneration. An officer's pay is only a portion of his emoluments. Allowances such as ration allowance and lodging, fuel and light allowance also form a not inconsiderable part of these emoluments and it has, therefore, been represented that it is unfair to an officer filling such an appointment to have his retired pay cut by reference to his Army pay alone. Hence, Article 15 of the amending scheme widens the meaning of the word "pay" so as to include allowances.

The effect of Articles 18, 41 and 42 is also to remove existing restrictions and thus to broaden the basis of the pensions scheme. Under the principal scheme originally, if an officer died while serving with less than 12 years' pensionable service, his widow was entitled to a gratuity calculated at the rate of 30 days' pay for each year of service; and if a soldier similarly died without the service required for pension, no gratuity was payable. Under the 1940 amendment, a gratuity was payable in the case of a married soldier to his widow and children, but both the principal scheme and the amended scheme of 1940 made no provision for the payment of a gratuity to the dependents of an unmarried soldier who died in the service. The present amendment abolishes all these restrictions. Article 18 provides a gratuity of 30 days' pay for each year of service for the widow or children of a married officer who dies while serving, even if he has less than five years' service. Under Article 41, if the officer had less than 12 years' service when he died, the gratuity will be payable not only to his widow or children but, in the case of a single man, to certain relatives; and under Article 42 any gratuity which a soldier has earned by virtue of his service will also be payable to the widow or children in the case of a married, or to certain relatives in the case of an unmarried soldier.

A final restriction removed by this scheme is that which appertains to the service of non-commissioned ranks promoted to commissioned ranks. Under the principal scheme, if a soldier be promoted to commissioned rank, then for pension purposes as an officer, he is entitled to only one-half of his service in non-commissioned rank. This bears harshly on ranker officers, because many of them being old when promoted have not many years to serve before becoming due for retirement. Hence Article 34 (1) of the present scheme allows such officers to reckon all their service in non-commissioned rank for the purpose of retired pay. Again, sub-article 34 (1) (b) allows the temporary officers newly appointed to commissioned rank in the forces to count for pension purposes any period served during the emergency and it also permits an officer who served in the Volunteer Force to count for pension purposes any period allowed to him in the matter of age limits when being appointed to commissioned rank in the forces.

The remaining articles of the scheme are relatively unimportant and for the greater part simply redraft the original articles of the principal scheme. Thus, Article 13 merely redrafts Article 13 of the principal scheme, which deals with the retired pay of specialist or technical officers, such as medical, legal and engineer officers. The only difference, indeed, between the amended and the principal schemes is that legal officers appointed after the operative date of this scheme will receive 10 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. increase on retired pay. The reason for the reduction is that the pay of newly appointed legal officers will henceforth be practically on the same basis as other officers who are entitled to only 10 per cent. increase on retired pay. Again, Article 20 is for all practical purposes simply a redraft of Article 24 (2) of the principal scheme, which enumerates what periods of service—such as absence without leave, desertion, etc. —may not be included in reckoning pensionable service. Finally, Articles 21 and 25 are drafting amendments necessitated by the introduction of this amended scheme; Articles 11, 16 and 39 deal with the hypothetical cases of officers on retirement entering the Civil Service or Garda Síochána; Article 17 provides for the new military commissioned rank of lieutenant-colonel; and Article 33 makes it clear that a public claim may be recovered from any gratuity or pension.

The estimated cost of this amended scheme is briefly as follows:—

1. Married Officers' and Soldiers' Gratuities.	£
Retirements (Article 8)	300
Retired Remarried Widower Officers (Article 9)	850
Officers' Widows (Article 10)	3,988
Officers on Half Pay or Sick Leave before Retirement (Article 19)	1,775
Retired Ranker Officers (Article 34)	4,950
Soldiers' Gratuities (Articles 26 and 42)	200
Total,	£12,063

2. Pensions.	£
Compulsory Retirements (Article 6)	700
Area Administrative Officers (Article 7)	985
Voluntary Retirement (Article 8)	310
Increase in Officers' Pensions (Article 14)	11,860
Pay to include Allowances (Article 15)	156
Officers on Half Pay or Sick Leave before Retirement (Article 19)	160
Increase in Soldiers' Pensions (Article 22)	1,946
Retired Ranker Officers (Article 34)	4,340
Rank Element for Commandants (Article 35)	480
Total,	£20,937

The total cost, therefore, for this financial year, is estimated at £33,000, of which £12,063 will be non-recurring.

Mr. Cosgrave

The pensions and gratuities for officers, that is, the gratuities paid at the termination of the emergency and the pensions now proposed to be paid under this scheme, are satisfactory. There are, however, a couple of observations I would like to make. In comparison with the pension provision for other ranks, the pension provision for a member of the Council of Defence who has reached the rank of major-general or lieutenant-general is, I think, on the small side. If we take the responsibilities and the duties which a person serving on the Council of Defence has—in particular, a person who may be a chief of staff or may hold some other important position, such as adjutant-general or quartermaster-general—and if we consider the pensions paid to higher civil servants, I think the House will realise that a case can be made for more generous treatment.

No matter how this question is examined, I think it is generally realised that holding of these ranks, and particularly in times of emergency, calls not merely for peculiar types of service and for close attention to duty but involves the acceptance of very considerable responsibilities. For that reason, I think that, if anything, more generous treatment is merited. There are certain improvements in the scheme which are welcome, and, in particular, the amendment which entitles the members of the family of an officer who, as the scheme formerly was phrased, had not signed his resignation certificate before he died, to receive a gratuity. As the Minister said, the placing before many officers who were seriously ill of a certificate in almost every case amounted to the officer's signing his own death warrant. Probably up to that time, he did not realise that he was in a bad physical condition, and the fact that he is presented with this certificate, when possibly in a very low condition, not merely created considerable hardship for the officer concerned but rendered the task which fell to his brother officers far more difficult and unpleasant—and not merely for them but for the members of his family.

These improvements are welcome, but there is one point in connection with gratuities for retired married officers to which I wish to refer. These gratuities were fixed almost ten years ago and I presume they were fixed at that time upon the basis of a figure which would enable an officer to resettle himself in civilian life after retirement. Whatever sum was then fixed cannot in present circumstances be regarded as adequate. The fact that that sum was fixed almost ten years ago and that there has been a steep increase in the cost of living, added to shortages of many commodities and supplies of one kind or another, makes it more difficult for an officer retiring now to find a suitable occupation in which to resettle himself. In general, the provision for officers is satisfactory. I cannot say the same about the provision for men.

The proposed increases in pensions under this scheme amount to 3d. per day or 1/9 per week. I do not know how the Department came to the conclusion that an increase of 1/9 per week could be adequate in present circumstances. The increase granted to officers amounts to 30 per cent., and the increase for men to something around 12 per cent. That increase, when one regards the cost of living as 70 per cent. above the 1939 cost, cannot be regarded as satisfactory and, in fact, cannot be regarded as anything but grossly unfair treatment of men who have retired, many of them after long years of service, much of it in troubled times and, in the more recent period, in times which might have constituted a serious emergency for the country and which in many respects was a serious emergency. That the best treatment the Government and this country can offer to these men is an increase of 1/9 per week is, in my view, an insult. It is an increase which is in no way adequate to meet the increased cost of living.

It is true that increases granted to State servants and to many sections of the community have been in the region of 30 per cent., and it is equally true that far higher increases have been granted by the Labour Court and by many employers to different categories of workers. Whatever may be said of the difficulties of the man who is at present employed and who was employed continuously during the emergency and who is now in a position possibly to secure better conditions, and whatever may be said about a 30 per cent. increase, or even a 40 or 50 per cent. increase not enabling that man, in view of the increase in the cost of living to live on the same standard as that on which he lived in 1939, he is, at any rate, still working, and possibly may expect further increases with a general improvement in conditions. But when we consider soldiers who retire after many years' service, the majority of them advanced in years and certainly too far advanced in years to find it easy to secure alternative employment outside—it is extremely difficult for a person advanced in years to readapt himself to civilian conditions, to re-equip himself for industrial or other work or to remould his life to take his place in an entirely different sphere from that to which he has been accustomed during his Army career—nobody can pretend for a moment that 1/9 per week increase is adequate to enable that soldier to face the future with any confidence or to face the future in the knowledge that the Government has not merely recognised his services but has recognised them in a tangible way.

I cannot imagine on what basis of calculation these increases were decided upon. No matter how one looks at this matter—whether from the actuarial or mathematical point of view, or the ordinary point of view from which everyone must approach questions of this kind, it is obvious that 1/9 increase will not only not enable a soldier to provide the necessaries of life for himself but will not enable him to meet the domestic responsibilities which many of these men have. In the future, it may be expected that soldiers will retire at an earlier age than heretofore. Modern warfare and modern methods of military training call for greater physical exertion and stronger physical makeup than in the past, and it is generally realised that the retiring ages of serving officers and men tend to become lower. It may be assumed then that if, in the future, a soldier enlists at any age from 18 to 20, after 21 years' service, unless he has been promoted to a higher rank—and while many may be promoted, they cannot all be promoted to non-commissioned or commissioned rank—he will find himself demobilised at anything from 41 to 45 years of age. It is true that, under the terms of this scheme, a soldier may serve a maximum additional period of 10 years. For each additional year of service he will get an increase of 1/- per week.

Some soldiers may serve for these periods. But the qualifications, restrictions and the discretion which the Minister has in allowing a soldier to serve over a period longer than 21 years are such that, in the majority of cases, the soldiers will only serve 21 years. There may be exceptions in the case of some N.C.Os. and possibly a few men. Therefore, in fact, while it is possible to serve for a maximum of 10 years longer and receive additional pay up to a maximum of 10/-, by and large these improved conditions will not be operative for the majority of soldiers. That being so, we should consider how it is expected to recruit in future adequate numbers to meet our national needs. Unless we can assure those who contemplate joining the Army that they will get fair treatment, not merely while in the Army, because the conditions are much improved, but when they retire, I think there will be no encouragement to join the Army as privates.

There is another aspect of this question to which I should like to refer, and that is, the increase in pension for married soldiers of 7/- per week. I think the pension provision should be based on service. While a case may be made for some increased allowances for soldiers who have family responsibilities, I think that anything less than £1 per week for a single man is inadequate in present circumstances if that man is to meet anything like his reasonable requirements or, in fact, anything like his necessary requirements. Certainly, anything less than 30/- per week would not be adequate for a married man. While some case may be made for the responsibilities which a married soldier has, I think the entitlement of a soldier to a pension should be based upon his service rather than on family responsibilities. If it is deemed advisable to give married men further benefits over and above those given to a single soldier, then it might be considered on the basis of children rather than on the basis that a man was married. At the same time, now that children's allowances are in operation, the married man, at any rate, has better conditions than he would have had formerly. Therefore, I think that in all cases the pension should be based on service.

Another matter to which I should like to refer in connection with this whole pension scheme is, that, for some unknown reason, except that a date has to be decided upon, and last September was deemed to be the date most suitable from the Department's point of view, the increases are to operate from the 2nd September. It is almost two years now since the emergency ceased. At that time both officers and men were encouraged to retire. In fact, in many cases they were facilitated in finding employment and in establishing themselves in civilian life. It was reasonable to assume that many officers and men would avail of that encouragement. A large number of them took the opportunities, such as they are, which offered and resettled themselves in civilian occupations or in their own business and in that way not merely lightened the burden on the Department but proved themselves good citizens. They proved that they had not merely a sense of the responsibility which they owed to the community in times of emergency but an equally high sense of the responsibility which they deemed they owed to the community in times of peace.

What did they find? That from the 2nd September, a date unannounced in advance, certainly not with any reasonable degree of advanced knowledge which the members of the Defence Force might have expected, all serving officers and men received increased pensions. It is true, of course, that some date had to be decided upon and that, no matter what date was decided upon, a number of officers and men might feel that they had a grievance. While that is so, any officer or man who retired between May, 1945, and September, 1946, with the altered living conditions, with the high cost of living, with the difficulty of securing a position in civilian life, with all the other attendant difficulties, such as securing housing accommodation in the case of married officers and men, received a lower pension than an officer or man who retired since September, 1946. While a date had to be decided upon and while grievances might be put forward no matter what date was decided upon, I think that, when we consider the very steep increase in the cost of living which took place over the emergency, added to the other difficulties which I have mentioned, no case can be made for allowing an officer or man who proceeded to resettle himself in life from May, 1945, to September, 1946, to retire at a lower rate of pension. As I said, whatever chance a person who is in continuous employment has of improving his position, of facing the present difficulties and the high cost of every commodity, a person who has retired and has to live on a fixed income, without the members of his family being in a position to contribute to the upkeep of the home as is the case with the majority of these people, is certainly faced with difficulties which it is hard for anyone not similarly circumstanced to imagine.

I think I have covered most of the shortcomings in this scheme. As I said, there are a number of improvements upon which I compliment the Minister and his Department. Finally, I should like to say that it would be a help to those who have to try to interpret these schemes if we had one single Order embodying all the schemes. As it is, we have the original scheme of 1937, the amending scheme of 1940 and the amending scheme of 1947.

Finally—and this is a matter that was adverted to recently—this scheme has either to be confirmed or rejected. Nobody faced with these alternatives could oppose it. It is not with any sense of satisfaction that I commend it. I think it might be improved, if we so altered the conditions of this scheme that it would be possible to move amendments. Many amendments are desirable and I hope the Minister, if not immediately, will, in the future, ponder over the desirable and, in fact, the necessary amendments which could be made.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Everett

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to certain anomalies in some cases that came to my notice. I know of cases where men have had 23 years' service. They joined up with a large number of others, who remained on in the Army and were offered higher pensions. These particular men followed the instructions issued by the Minister's Department in a White Paper in 1945 and looked for other employment. I have in mind cases of N.C.O.s and ordinary privates. A number of these men now find themselves in this position that, by following the Department's instructions in the White Paper to which I have referred, they were awarded only 19/3 as a pension, whereas if they remained on with their comrades who joined the Army at the same time they would have received much better financial treatment. These men all joined the Army at the same time and they gave good and honourable service. The men who have been awarded the better pensions were advised last year not to retire until after September, and after September their pensions would be increased.

These other men have a grievance. By retiring when they did retire, and adopting the instructions issued by the Department, they find they are at a loss. I appeal to the Minister, seeing that these men have given good service, to give them equal treatment with the men who remained on.

I would like to know from the Minister if any arrangement has been made to increase the pensions of the men who gave service from 1916 until 1927. All Parties in the House, I am sure, fully recognise the sacrifices these men made. No Deputy would object to an increase of pension being granted to the men who served the country up to 1927. Increases have been granted to all other sections of the community. These men should be the first concern of the State and we cannot be too generous to them no matter to what Party we may be attached. I think the Minister should consider giving an increase to the men who gave service in that period.

Mr. Corish

This scheme will be welcomed by a number of pensioners, but I think in the majority of cases there will be utter dissatisfaction because they will consider that some of the proposals embodied in the scheme are grossly unfair, especially to Army men who retired before 2nd September, 1946. I am at a loss to know—and I do not think the Minister has referred to it—what special significance attaches to 2nd September, 1946. For other purposes in the Army the 9th May, 1945, contained a certain significance in so far as it was the end of the emergency. I have in mind one case where a man who retired from the Army before that date could not count his years of service in the Army during the emergency period in order to qualify for a particular job in connection with which he had to appear before the Local Appointments Commissioners.

If this had been the date in the scheme rather than the 2nd September, 1946, I think it would have been more acceptable to the House and to the pensioners. There were a lot of what we could term old stagers in 1939 who had visions of retiring and who were desirous of quitting the Army, but a call was made by every political Party and a special national appeal was issued and they stayed on for the period of the emergency. They made a great sacrifice in swelling the ranks of the Army and giving the young recruits the benefit of their experience. To a large extent this scheme will not be acceptable to them. They will find grave objections to it. In some cases people who had 15 or 16 years' service would ordinarily have had the necessary 21 years' service but, at the end of the emergency, on the advice of the Minister, they retired from the Army and tried to get jobs in civilian life. As the last speaker said, they were encouraged by the Minister and his Department to retire because the Army lost its usefulness at the end of the emergency and there was no great need for a big Army. These men tried to fix themselves up in jobs and big numbers were released from 9th May in the following 12 months. To them this amended pension scheme will indeed be a big disappointment. All these Army pensioners were looking forward, as most State pensioners were, to an increase, and they will think it peculiar that certain men are singled out for the increase while they are left with the old pensions.

Another objectionable feature of the scheme is that the N.C.O.s and privates will get an increase of 1/9 per week, while for the officers there is an increase of 30 per cent. It is grossly unfair that there should be such discrimination between the officers and the ordinary rank and file. If the Minister will not consider giving these increases all round, irrespective of the date of retiral, he should have some consideration for the wives of those pensioners who will not benefit under the scheme. I suggest that 7/- per week of an increase should go to the wives of those who, under this scheme, will not be entitled to increases.

As regards the qualifying date, 2nd September, 1946, I should like to remind the Minister that recently there were increases in some of the social services—in unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and other social welfare schemes—and there was no qualification in order that a person might be eligible to get those increases. Irrespective of whether a man was drawing unemployment assistance or not, irrespective of whether a woman was in receipt of a widow's pension or not before the application of these increases, the increases were given all round, and I think it would not be unreasonable if the Minister were to reconsider his proposals in respect of the qualifying date in this instance and give increases to all who are in receipt of Army pensions at present.

Mr. Byrne

I, like every other member of the House, have met men who served in the Army from the very beginning up to late in 1945 and who now complain that they are not getting the benefits of this new scheme. When the men were paraded on the barrack squares in 1945, and encouraged, induced and inveigled into going out on pension at an early date, told to look for employment while the going was good and generally given the impression that they had served the full term of the required service and that the pensions they were getting would be the maximum pension, I want to know had the Minister any knowledge at that date that increased pensions were to be given in another six months' or 12 months' time? Surely it must have been in the minds of some of the heads of the Department that when they got rid of the long-service men, they would bring in the scheme we have here to-night. A number of the men who were induced, as I say, to leave the Army at that time, feel very much aggrieved over this matter. I join with other Deputies in appealing to the Minister to see that the men who left the Army in 1944, 1945 and 1946 and who were encouraged to go in the circumstances I have described, should be given the benefit of this latest pension scheme. I think it is time that the Government should make up its mind that the highest possible pension should be given to men who had 21 years' service, no matter at what date they retire. Only to-day I met a man who is one of the victims of this latest scheme. Had he waited another six months or another 12 months in the Army, himself and his family would have benefited by some 8/- or 9/- a week. That is a considerable amount for a man who had to go out on about 19/- a week. I join in the appeal to the Minister to remove the qualifying date so that the scheme can apply to every man who was encouraged by the Minister and his Department to leave the Army before the scheme was introduced.

General Mulcahy

I think it is quite impossible to understand the Minister's attitude in providing a new set of pension rates beginning from the 2nd September, 1946. As other Deputies who have spoken have indicated, men who had practically completed their service in the Army found themselves in 1939 called upon by the country to stand by the country in an emergency that contained unknown and incalculable dangers at the time. They, very patriotically, remained on. They were the men who made it possible to build the emergency Army, developing in it such a state of efficiency and such a morale that in spite of the fact that you had a very long period in which the Army was mobilised without active war conditions, you had no serious breakdown in morale. On the contrary, the Army was exemplary in its morale, discipline and conduct. The credit of all that is due to the men who stood by the Army in 1939, who instead of retiring from the Army service, and entering on the normal civil life that they might have expected, remained on in the Army. Instead of leaving the Army and entering civil life in 1940 or 1941 when it was possible to find remunerative employment and when it was possible to get a home, they carried on until 1946 and 1947 when the possibilities of getting employment were very much smaller and when it became absolutely and utterly impossible to get a home in which they might settle down in civil life. They made such sacrifices and were involved in such difficulties as a result of standing by the Army that only those closely in touch with them, and closely in touch with a number of them, so varied are the cases, can realise.

I consider that it is a serious blot on the country's treatment of the Army that when the new pensions scheme was introduced, it was not brought into force from the date, say, of the establishment of the United States Army in France or the capitulation of Germany because these men remained on in the Army simply because they felt there was a danger confronting the country, and when the danger was past they retired from the Army straight away. They helped the country by reducing the financial cost of the Army at the time and they were helping the country by doing their best to endeavour to get back into civil employment. By leaving the Army immediately after the Allied Forces had established themselves in France, particularly immediately after Germany had surrendered, these men were doing a double service to the State. They were returning to serve the State in a civil capacity and they were making room in the Army to enable some of the younger men who had been trained under their instruction to remain on.

There is a very considerable amount of thoughtlessness in fixing the date of the coming into operation of the new pension schemes at the 2nd September, 1946. Even this has entered into the minds of people who complain, particularly in the ordinary ranks of private, sergeant, corporal—and there is probably something in it—that the reason why the present proposed pensions for other ranks are so small is because the authorities did not want to put substantial pensions in juxta position with the smallness of the pensions for other ranks paid before the 2nd September, 1946. What is the result? How much ought an Irish soldier who had given his full service of 21 years in the Army get as a pension? I would like Deputies to write down for themselves what they think a single man who had served 21 years as a soldier in the Irish Army, either beginning to-day or ending to-day, should get.

What is the Minister proposing under this scheme to give him after serving 21 years as a private in the Army?—15/9 in 1947 money which is worth 7/10½ of pre-war money. That is the scheme the Minister is bringing in here. If that soldier was in the British Army he would get 24/10. If he was a corporal having served four or five years as a corporal and was going out after 21 years' service in the army he would get 19/3 in 1947 money, or 9/7 in pre-war money. If he was a sergeant, he would get 22/- pension or 11/- pre-war money. If we compare the private in the Irish Army with the private in the British Army and the corporal and the sergeant in the Irish Army with the corporal and the sergeant in the British Army we find that the private in the Irish Army is promised that he will get 15/9 as against 24/- in the British Army, the corporal 19/3 as against 26/6, and the sergeant 22/- as against 34/-.

The question also arises, what does the Minister mean by the policy of discriminating between the single man and the married man in relation to pension? The pay that we give in the Irish Army is hardly calculated to induce a man while serving in the Army to take on the responsibility of a wife and family and I have yet to learn that it is the policy of the military authorities to encourage that their Army should be a married army. I have not seen any evidence of it yet. But, the single soldier is discriminated against by the system the Minister is now introducing of adding 7/- to the single man's pension to find out what the married man's pension should be. It is a grotesque arrangement. Whether you take the married man or the single man, the rates of pension, with perhaps the exception of the corporal, bear no relation at all to those paid in the British Army and, as between married and single men, they are grotesque and unconvincing and I do not know, as Deputy Cosgrave says, what effect they are likely to have on recruiting for the Army.

With regard to officers I think there is something basically weak also in the Minister's approach to the position of pensions for officers. In the first place it has to be realised that a lieutenant in the Irish Army will not be kept after he is 45 years of age, a captain after 48 years of age, a commandant after 51 years of age, a lieutenant-colonel after 54, a colonel after 57. The scheme then is that the officers of the Irish Army are forced out into civil life at these ages and the pensions that have been fixed have been fixed by reference to an increase of 30 per cent. on the pre-war basis. The highest pension of the lieutenant will be £210.

When the Government were dealing with Civil Service increases, recently, if we look for comparable figures, the £239 scale, that is, basic salary plus bonus, of 1939 became £351—an increase of 47 per cent. The increase on £210 of lieutenant's full pension, of 30 per cent., brings it to only £273. There is a substantial discrepancy there in the treatment of a lieutenant who, pre-war, would have got £211 pension, and the treatment of an officer in the Civil Service with £239. The civil servant is increased by 47 per cent.; the lieutenant is increased by 30 per cent. If we take the captain who was expecting full pension pre-war of £230, he gets now an increase of 30 per cent. If he were a civil servant he would get an increase of 47 per cent. A commandant who was expecting £290 pre-war is now going to get an increase of 30 per cent. on that, that is, £337, but the civil servant on £306 will get an increase of 40 per cent., bringing him to £440. A lieutenant-colonel expecting pre-war payment of £340 per annum will get a 32 per cent. increase on that, or £442. Civil servants with £369 per annum would be raised by 41 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. and will get £520, and so on. There is that different treatment in the payments that have been made by way of pension of officers after a full period of service and civil servants whose income is of somewhat similar amounts. I can see no reason for it. I do not understand it and I think it is a blot on the scheme.

Then we take the question of the gratuity. Before the war, lieutenants retiring after full service expected a gratuity of £350. That is not being increased, so that men who are retiring in extraordinarily difficult circumstances in relation to resettlement, that is, finding a house, and finding equipment for a house, are only being offered gratuities of the same amount as they would have got if the war had never intervened and as if there never had been a rise in the cost of living. I think it is very shabby treatment of men retiring from the Army after a full period of service. Every section of the people has received increases in the annual amounts or special amounts that are coming to them and that have a bearing on their maintaining themselves and their families properly.

If the civil servant whose annual increase over his 1939 income is 40 per cent., 44 per cent., 47 per cent., or 53 per cent., as the case may be, retires to-day he will get his gratuity as well as his pension, his gratuity being a full year's salary. He will, in addition, retire on the 50 per cent. increase, the 40 per cent. increase, or the 30 per cent. increase, as the case may be, and I challenge the Minister on that point. I challenge the Minister for any grounds of logic by which, say, a captain who, if he retired in 1939 or 1940 when he was due and entitled to retire, would have got a gratuity of £400 is being retired now with no increase in that amount in spite of the fact that he has made sacrifices to stay on in order to give additional service and who is retiring now when his rehabilitation will be much more costly than it would have been at that particular time.

These are points that strike me in regard to this scheme. The Minister has put together in the scheme a number of difficult cases which have been causing distress, the solution and remedial treatment of which will be welcomed by very many people. However, we have here a basic pensions scheme which is intended to deal not only with men who have served in the Army but also with people who are going to serve in the Army in future.

There is another point to which I think it would be appropriate to draw the Minister's attention. Captains, commandants, lieutenants, lieutenant-colonels and colonels are retiring to-day after a full and complete service, including very valuable service rendered during the emergency, yet the scheme with regard to wages, etc., is so drafted that quite a number of them—men with the fullest possible service and first-class qualifications as to service, character and rank—are unable to get the full pension due to their rank. It would want more than a slide-rule, it would want an electric one, to get a true picture of the very complicated position shown up here. Deputy Cosgrave suggested that a pensions scheme in the ordinary, simple, straightforward way should be redrafted now. It would be well to do it. It is almost impossible to pick one's way through all the complexities of the scheme as at present presented. However, when one does so one finds that officers of first-class calibre who are retiring after the fullest possible period of excellent service, are not able to get their full rate of pension as is scheduled in this order.

Mr. O'Leary

I would like to bring a few points, which most Deputies have overlooked, to the Minister's attention. According to this scheme a man after 21 years service becomes entitled to a pension. At the moment there are to be found, all over the country, young soldiers and old soldiers who served in the emergency and who have been discharged as medically unfit. I have particulars here of the case of a soldier who strained his right kidney. He was discharged on that ground as medically unfit. He made application to the Army Pensions Board for an award and he was informed as follows:—

"It has not been established that the disability from which you suffer is due to injury attributable to your service in the Defence Forces or to your service in the forces during the emergency period."

In my own constituency I come across soldiers, discharged as medically unfit, who are drawing on the ratepayers, some of them on National Health Insurance, because they have no compensation in the way of pension. That is very bad treatment for men who rallied to the cause in 1939 when an appeal was made for the defence of the country— men who to-day, because of their Army activity, manoeuvres, etc., have fallen into bad health, got tuberculosis or suffered, perhaps, only slight injury. That is the kind of reward they get when they apply under these Acts for compensation. On paper all these Acts look well.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must realise that at present we are dealing only with one pension scheme. Disability pensions are outside this scheme.

Mr. O'Leary

I wonder why this White Paper and this scheme were brought in. I wonder why the Minister did not think of these men. To-day, if a man has served 21 years, as Deputy General Mulcahy has said, he gets 15/9. He gets that amount after having given the best part of his life to the service of his country. It is an insult to a soldier. We cannot expect to have a good standing Army if that is the kind of treatment a man will get after 21 years' service. I think that the measure before the House is an insult to the officers and to the men in the Army. A soldier is a disciplined man who has only a few hours a day for himself, yet, after all those years, he is entitled only to a miserable pension.

Deputy Everett referred to the men who served from 1916 to 1927. Where do these men come under this Act? Twelve months ago there were great congratulations, and bouquets were thrown to the Minister. For what? For giving a few pounds of a gratuity to these men so that he would have no more responsibility. These men are on the labour exchange to-day because no work has been provided for them. The remainder of them had to leave the country and are now in the British coal mines. Everything possible should be done to make the men in the Army contented. They should have something to look forward to after serving for 21 years.

The introduction of the date, 2nd September, 1946, in this scheme deprives the vast majority of the soldiers who served during the emergency from getting benefit under it. I think the Minister ought to get his experts to examine the scheme again, because, as it is, it is only a half measure. We provide pensions for civil servants and for officials of local authorities who have not given half the service that soldiers have given to the State. A local authority official who had a salary of £6 or £8 a week while he was serving, gets a pension of a couple of pounds a week. The man who serves for 21 years in the Army gets the miserable sum of 15/9. To my mind this is not a pension scheme at all. The British Government are giving higher pensions and we ought to do the same. The country and the civilian population have to look to the Army for protection and security in the time of an emergency. Many of those who served during the emergency now find themselves on the scrap heap. Those men should be getting 30/- a week because, as Deputy Mulcahy has said, 15/- a week is only worth half what it was. Something should be done, too, for the dependents of the 1916 men. Many of them have passed away, and their widows now have to go to the home assistance officer for some charity. The men who served in the Army are deserving of something better than this from this House. When a soldier is serving in the Army his life is at stake, and he should be compensated for any service he gives.

Mr. Traynor

I have been asked what was the significance of the "2nd of September". The Deputy who has just interrupted made the innuendo that we were holding back the pay until such time as we could make the announcement and when, it was presumed, a number of people would have left the Army. Of course, there is no truth whatever in that. The fact of the matter is that the "2nd September, 1946", was the date fixed for the increase in the pay. That is the significance of the date "2nd September, 1946". I want to draw the attention of the House further to this basic fact that pensions are paid on the pay received. If a man is receiving a sum of money at one period that is less than the sum that is being paid at another period, his pension will be paid on that amount of pay, and there is nothing that I can do, and there is nothing that anybody else can do, to bring any individual into the increased rate of pension if he went out before the 2nd of September. Indeed, if we were to make any attempt at doing anything in respect to bringing these particular people in, the Government would be faced with the bringing in of large numbers of other services in the State; and every one of those other services would be just as entitled to the increased amount of pension as the people that the Deputies have been discussing here this evening.

References were made to the difference between the amount of increase to officers and the amount of increase to men, and the suggestion was that the men were given a much less increase than the officers. That, of course, is not so. The total increase awarded to a man—as I said in my opening statement-amounts to 60 per cent., which is practically double that awarded to officers. I did say, of course, that it represented 12½ per cent., but in the case of the married pensions it brought it to 60 per cent. I suppose everyone will more or less agree that every soldier who will have completed 21 years or more in the Army will have married by that time and, therefore, will have qualified for the greater amount.

I have not asked for any bouquets to be thrown at me; and I do not know that any bouquets were thrown at me. I do not think that even the White Paper satisfied the entire House; it may have satisfied the reasonable members of the House, but it was not generally accepted, nor did I expect that this Defence Forces scheme would be—although, as I said in the beginning, practically every article in the scheme is an improvement of the present position. I am long enough here now to realise that Deputies do not throw bouquets and, if they do, they generally seem to have a brick concealed somewhere in them and, therefore, they do not count too much. The fact of the matter is—and I want to emphasise this—that the scheme which I am asking the House to confirm is one which is providing better conditions generally for the rank and file of the Army. I am pretty well satisfied that they will be welcomed by the Army.

This need not necessarily be the last of the improvements. I have no doubt that those who will follow me will be as anxious as I have been to improve the conditions. I have done my part, as far as it was possible to do it. I do not say that I have done everything I would like to have done and, as I say, whoever follows me, if he will follow the example which I have tried to give in my period as Minister for Defence, will, as a result, improve the conditions very much further.

It is easy enough for Deputies who have not got the responsibilities to be very generous. Perhaps I would be just as generous as they would be, but my entire recommendations may not always be accepted. A large number of them have been accepted in this case and they have gone into this scheme, and I rather imagine that, in the main, they will be acceptable to the rank and file of the Army.

Question put and declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 12 Jun 1947

Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1947-Motion.

Mr. Corish

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Jun 1947