Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Oct 1947

Vol. 108 No. 8

Financial Resolutions—Report (Resumed). - Superannuation Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of this Bill is to provide for the adjustment of Civil Service superannuation awards granted during the period in which Civil Service salaries were subject to the Civil Service (Stabilisation of Bonus) Regulations.

Civil Service salaries were stabilised at a cost-of-living figure of 185 from the 1st July, 1940, to the 31st December, 1944, and at 210 from the 1st January, 1945, with certain modifications which allowed of the payment of emergency bonus. All superannuation awards made during these two periods were in the first instance calculated by reference to whichever of these figures applied at the time. The Emergency Powers (No. 354) Order 1945, permitted the pensions of those who retired in the second half of 1940 to be adjusted to a bonus figure of 205—the then actual cost-of-living figure—and those awarded from 1941 to the end of 1944 to a bonus figure of 210—the adjusted pensions becoming payable as from the 1st January, 1945. The Order contained a clause prohibiting the adjustment of the lump sum and gratuity awards. Awards of pensions, lump sums and gratuities made during the remainder of the stabilisation period (that is from 1st January, 1945, to the 31st October, 1946) have been assessed on the basis of a cost-of-living figure of 210. Awards since the 1st November, 1946, have been related to the new consolidated salary rates.

I propose in this Bill to provide for two things: first, for the adjustment of pensions as on and from the 1st November, 1946, in relation to the cost-of-living figure appropriate at the date of retirement on pension subject to the limitation that in no case will the pension be readjusted by reference to a cost-of-living figure higher than 270 which is the figure by reference to which Civil Service salaries have been consolidated; secondly, I propose to set aside the prohibition in the Emergency Powers (No. 354) Order, 1945, against the adjustment of lump sum and gratuity awards and to adjust all statutory awards of lump sums and gratuities made since the 1st July, 1940, on the same basis as the pensions adjustment.

I can perhaps best illustrate the effects of the Bill by indicating the bonus figures by reference to which the pensions, lump sums and gratuities covered by the Bill will be adjusted.

Awards in respect of the period 1st July, 1940, to 31st December, 1943, will be adjusted to the appropriate actual cost-of-living figure as follows:—

2nd half of year 1940	205
1st ,, ,, 1941	210
2nd ,, ,, 1941	220
1st ,, ,, 1942	230
2nd ,, ,, 1942	235
1st ,, ,, 1943	260
2nd ,, ,, 1943	270

The pensions awarded in the second half of the year 1940 and the first half of the year 1941 have been already adjusted to the appropriate actual cost-of-living under the Emergency Powers (No. 354) Order, 1945. The provisions of the Bill will therefore operate in these cases only to adjust the lump sum and gratuity awards.

The actual cost-of-living figure for each of the half-yearly periods from 31st December, 1943, to 31st October, 1946, was over 270 and accordingly the pensions, lump sums and gratuities awards in respect of this period will be adjusted to the figure of 270 on which consolidation of salaries was finally based.

I may add that apart from the benefits provided in the Bill I have directed that the lump sum and gratuity awards which fall to be adjusted under the Bill will be calculated by reference to 100 per cent. of the appropriate bonus. The practice since 1921 has been to reckon only 75 per cent. of the bonus in the calculation of lump sum and gratuity awards. This practice was modified as from the 1st January, 1944, in the case of awards made after that date. I propose to extend this concession to apply to the awards made from the date of bonus stabilisation, that is from the 1st July, 1940. Furthermore, it is not intended that these revised awards should be subject to variation by reference to any future change in the cost-of-living index figure.

The Minister for Justice intends to introduce a Bill to provide for the adjustment of Garda Síochána pensions on the same lines as those contained in this Bill.

Section 2 will permit of the adjustment of the awards made to civil servants who retired during the stabilisation period. The pensions, including allowances payable under the injury warrant to officers injured in the course of their duty, which were in course of payment on the 1st November, 1946, will be adjusted under sub-section (2) as from that date. Sub-section (3) relates to the adjustment of the lump sums and gratuities. The lump sums are those payable to male officers in addition to pension and are described in the Superannuation Acts as additional allowances. These lump sums will be adjusted even where the pensioner has died before the 1st November, 1946, and where the pension will not in consequence fall to be adjusted. The gratuities are those paid to established officers who retired on the grounds of ill health before qualifying for pension and compassionate gratuities paid to unestablished officers on retirement on health or age grounds. Sub-section (3) will also allow of the adjustment of the gratuity paid to the legal personal representatives of a Civil Service pensioner who died before the amount paid by way of pension and lump sum (additional allowance) equalled the amount of the deceased's salary. The gratuity is an amount equal to the difference.

The section will not apply to the persons mentioned at paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) for the reasons that the person to whom Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1946, applies has already had his award adjusted under that Act on the lines now being provided for under this Bill; the other exempted classes are certain officers whose basic salary plus stabilised cost-of-living bonus plus emergency bonus was not less than the sum of the basic salary plus bonus on the actual cost-of-living figure or on the figure of 270 as appropriate and where the award already made equals or exceeds that which would be awarded under the Bill. As these pensioners cannot benefit further under the Bill they are being excluded from its scope and will retain their existing awards.

Sub-section (6) is a consequential amendment of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, following the pension adjustments. That Act provides that where a pensioner is re-employed in the public service the pension is abated to the extent to which the pension plus the remuneration of the new office exceeds the remuneration of his former office. Since the adjusted pension will be calculated on a salary rate higher than that which was paid to him on retirement the abatement will be by reference to the higher remuneration and will, of course, operate for the benefit of the pensioner.

The necessity for Section 3 arises from the fact that county registrars may now elect to receive an award of pension under either the Superannuation Acts or under the Court Officers Act, 1945. Where a county registrar elects for a Superannuation Act award the adjustment will fall to be made under the Bill generally. Special powers are, however, necessary to cover the awards payable under the Court Officers Act, 1945. In fact only one officer is involved. Sub-section (4) of this section provides for the mechanics of abatement of pension on the lines I have indicated in relation to sub-section (6) of Section 2 in the case of Superannuation Act pensions.

Section 4 applies to civil servants who died during the stabilisation period while in the service. It will permit of the adjustment of the gratuities paid to the legal personal representatives of deceased established officers and to the dependents of unestablished officers. The section will also provide for the adjustment as from the 1st November, 1946, of the allowances awarded under the injury warrant to the widows and children of officers who were killed or who died as a result of injuries received in the execution of their duties. There have been a few such cases.

Section 5 modifies the effects of Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, in its application to persons who, after the 1st November, 1946, retire or die while in the service. That Act provides that where a civil servant receives promotion within three years of his retirement or death the superannuation award in his case is assessed on the average amount of salary received during the three years preceding his retirement or death. At present the award in these circumstances to an officer who retired, say, on the 1st November, 1946, would virtually be calculated by reference to the average salary based on the stabilised cost-of-living figure of 210 plus emergency bonus. The section will deem the officer to have been in receipt of bonus at the 270 figure before 1st November, 1946, so that he will be placed in the same position as an officer who retired in similar circumstances before the 31st October, 1946.

Mr. Costello

I must confess that I failed to follow the remarks made by the Minister—read out by him, rather. It would certainly take a much quicker brain than I have to follow the complicated series of adjustments that he indicated were being effected by this measure and at the moment I am not in a position to criticise any of those in detail. Possibly it would not be either appropriate or proper to criticise them in detail at this stage. Indeed, I suppose we must accept this Bill as giving some degree of justice to certain classes of civil servants.

What I want to speak about is, not what is in the Bill, but what is not in the Bill. The Bill covers people who retired in the year 1940, and between the year 1940 and the year 1946. The people on whose behalf I wish to say a few words are those pensioners who retired before the year 1940, and whose pretty serious plight is not being in any way alleviated by the provisions of this Bill. The class for whom I am speaking is a very small and diminishing class. Most of them must be well over 70 at the present time and, in the ordinary course of events, their period of continued existence on this sphere is strictly limited. They have had a very rough time in the last eight or nine years. They have not been able to get any measure of justice at all or any consideration for the difficulties which they have had to contend with in meeting the ever-rising cost of living. It may be said—it probably will be said— by the Minister in his reply that they have got nothing other than what they bargained for, just the same as the man in the Parable in the Gospel who worked all day got what he bargained for, so also the man who came in at the eleventh hour got what he bargained for, the same as the man who had worked all day. I think that is inappropriate to the conditions when it is recognised that every class of the community has been unable with the income which they had fixed by reference to pre-war standards to meet the conditions which have not merely existed in the last eight years, but have been ever-changing from year to year and ever-changing in the direction of making it more difficult for people to live within their means. These pensioners have earned their pensions, over a long number of years, in the public service, and a pension has, I think, been recognised by a high authority as merely deferred pay.

The provision in the Superannuation Acts, going back to 1834, under which the scheme of Civil Service superannuation is based, of course, envisaged normal conditions. It never envisaged that, under the scheme embodied in those Acts, there would come into existence a state of affairs which would render the amount of the pension which those people had earned over a long number of years, and which they were entitled to demand as being something which would enable them to live when they retired, would be so de-valued by circumstances—unforeseen when they entered the service—as not to be sufficient to enable them to live on the border of a decent subsistence. I do not know why it is that one particular point is selected at which whatever benefits are in this Bill are to be granted, and why those people who have very few to speak for them, are left out, and why the justice of their case which cries out for treatment has been ignored as it has been persistently ignored.

This is not the first time that their case has been raised in the House. I believe that they have made representations to the Government and to the Minister to no purpose and to no avail. They retired at a time when the official index cost-of-living figure was very much below any point reached from 1940 onwards. They are a class of people who have suffered most by the rise in the cost of living. They are a small class in the community and they have been ignored. They are left out of this Bill, but justice requires that some amelioration in their serious plight should be granted by the taxpayer. They are a small class and a diminishing class. To bring about some relationship between their pensions and what they have to subsist on would cost the taxpayer a comparatively small amount of money, but whatever it would cost the taxpayer, I think justice requires that it should be done.

We are supposed, in accordance with the preamble to the Constitution, to see by our laws that justice is maintained. I have come to the conclusion, as a result of my experience in this House and outside of it, that the provisions of the Constitution are read by nobody in the House, and least of all by Ministers. Justice requires that something should be done for this class of people. They are being set aside and are not being considered. Their plight is very serious indeed. I think that when a measure of this kind is brought before the Dáil the opportunity which it affords to remedy that injustice should be seized on by the Government and by all sections in the House. They have put their case before the Government. They have made representations, either through the Dáil, or elsewhere, of the condition in which they were placed by reason of the rapid rise in the cost of living. They were met with the plea that no Bill was being brought in to deal with the situation of people who had resigned and were subject to superannuation benefits, and that, accordingly, it was not intended to introduce any Bill in the circumstances existing during the so-called emergency. This Bill afforded an opportunity to deal with their case and yet they are being left out. The Minister, in the course of his speech, read out a whole series of calculations and figures which it was rather difficult to follow. The one outstanding matter that his statement did not deal with was the one matter that required to be dealt with, namely, the justice of the case of all those civil servants who retired up to 1940.

Mr. Norton

The purpose of this Bill, as indicated by the Minister, is to readjust the pensions of officers who retired between July, 1940, and October, 1946, on the basis of an index figure appropriate to the period in which they retired or an index figure of 170, whichever is the lesser. To the extent, therefore, that this Bill will result in a revision of pensions which were calculated on the stabilised cost of living index figure of 110 it is to be welcomed inasmuch as it will provide an increase for those officers whose pensions up to now have been calculated on the basis of an index figure as low as 110. While, therefore, the Bill concedes some measure, though not a complete measure by any means, of justice to those who will benefit by a recalculation of their pensions on the basis of an index figure of 170, it by no means deals with a very serious problem so far as the pensions of a large number of State servants are concerned, people to whom the Minister made no reference whatever in the course of his introductory speech.

Under this Bill, any person who retired prior to July, 1940, will get no increase whatever. Many persons who retired prior to that date retired when the cost-of-living index was as low as 150 and 155. To-day the cost-of-living index is 319. Notwithstanding the fact that the cost of living has increased by more than 100 per cent. for those who retired in 1932 and 1933, the Minister comes here with a Superannuation Bill which makes no attempt whatever to deal with those deserving people who are subsisting on rates of pensions calculated by reference to an index figure of 150 or 155. There is to be no remedy for them, notwithstanding the fact that the index figure has jumped from 150 and 155 in 1932 and in 1933 to 319 to-day.

I would like to know from the Minister how he can justify that cavalier attitude towards a number of people who have rendered 40 years' service to the State. Practically every one of them must now be 70 years of age or over. In fact, many of them must be nearly 80 years of age. The proposal in this Bill, while it merely extends partial recognition to the claims of those who retired between 1940 and 1946, nevertheless operates in this way, that under the Bill it will be possible for a person with a pension of £10 per week to get an increase in his present rate of pension, but the Minister is doing nothing whatever to grant an increase to the person who has got 20/- or 30/- a week and who retired prior to 1940. How does the Minister justify coming to the House and saying: "I propose to give increases in pensions to those with £8 or £10 per week pension, but I am not going to give a brass farthing to those who retired ten years earlier, even though their pensions to-day are as low as 20/- or 30/- per week?" That is what the Minister is doing in this Bill with his eyes wide open.

I ask the Minister how he can justify ignoring the claims of a large number of persons who retired prior to 1940 on low rates of pension, made low by the fact that they were calculated on a low index figure. These unfortunate people, having served the State for upwards of 40 years, are compelled to exist at the present high level of prices on rates of pension which were related to the relatively halcyon price position in 1932 and 1933. The much-despised Six-County Government introduced legislation to increase the pensions of retired State servants first by 30 per cent. and subsequently by 50 per cent. The British Government, although the cost of living in Great Britain has increased by only 30 per cent. since 1939, has increased the rates of pensions for all State servants who retired prior to the war. Here the cost of living has gone up by 84 per cent. and, whilst the British Government and the Six-County Government have increased the rates of pensions for pre-war pensioners, in this country, where the cost of living has increased by 84 per cent., we propose to do nothing whatever for that class in the community which has excited the sympathy of the Government in the Six Counties and the Government in Great Britain.

Is there anybody in this country who would expect unfortunate lowly-paid pensioners to subsist on the income which they had prior to 1939? These people are subsisting on pension scales fixed in 1932. As I said, the cost-of-living index was at a much lower figure then. Surely the Minister must acknowledge that they have an undeniable claim for a revision of the pension scale. Surely the Minister will not say that our financial position is so perilous that we cannot give to that unfortunate class of pensioners a reasonable increase in the low rates of pensions granted on their retirement.

I think the Minister is acting very unfairly and in a hard-hearted manner by closing the door against increases for pensioners in receipt of pre-1939 rates of pensions. He has good examples in the Six-County Government and the Government in Great Britain. We need not even go there. We ought to recognise as an undeniable fact that if a person had a pension calculated on an index figure in 1932 of 150 or 155, it is unreasonable to expect him to exist on that pension when the index figure rises to 319.

I am pleading in this matter for lowly-paid pensioners; for folk who worked in the public service for £3, £4, £5 and £6 per week. I am pleading for the person who retired on a small rate of pension. That small rate of pension was inadequate in a time of stable prices. It is grossly inadequate to-day when he is compelled to meet the impact of 100 per cent. increase in the cost of living without any increase in his rate of pension. Surely the Minister will hardly contend that our financial and economic position is such that we cannot do anything to improve the lot of lowly-paid pensioners and to extend to them some recognition, in their present difficulties, for the services which they generously gave to the nation. Persons will gain under this Bill if they retired in the last four years. If they retired ten years ago, they get nothing under this Bill. If they retired 15 years ago, they get still less under the Bill—if it is possible to give anybody less than nothing. The Minister is contriving to do it by the effects of this Bill.

The Minister may come back with the hoary old dodge that the State fulfilled its contract. That contention scarcely fools the Minister himself. He is far too astute for that. If he were pleading this case, he would not listen to that contention because he knows that it would not hold water. They may have a contract with the State. If they had a contract with the State, it was to give them 20/- for every £ of pension when they retired. To-day these people are being paid at the rate of 10/- for every £ owed to them. Assuming the increase in the cost of living is 100 per cent., that is what you are doing. You are paying them to-day pensions in depreciated money. They contracted for a pension based on the £ being worth 20/-. You are paying them in a deflated currency, because the £ is only worth 10/- now. How can you talk of contracts when the changes are being rung on the pensioners in that way? It is a strange kind of argument these days. Deputies had a contract with the people and the Legislature. We broke that contract and increased the allowances. Had not Ministers a contract with the State and with the people? Did we not break it and increase their salaries? Had not judges a contract? Did not we break it and increase their salaries? Why? Because it was contended that conditions had altered and that the cost of living had increased. Has it not increased for lowly-paid pensioners who retired from the State service?

The Minister must know that there is no moral answer to the claim of the lowly-paid pensioners for an increase. There is no financial answer to it, because the Minister cannot produce any argument to show that the State is not capable of bearing whatever financial load may be imposed on it by recognising the claim of lowly-paid pensioners for an increase. This Bill provides that everybody who retired since November, 1943, will in future be paid a pension on a cost-of-living index figure of 170. Those who retired before 1943 will be paid on a lower index figure. Quite clearly, those who retired before 1943 will be older than those who retired since. In accordance with normal anticipations, those who retired before 1943 will be a liability on the State for a lesser period than those who retired since that year. After some time we will get a line-up in respect of pensions in which practically all pensioners, those who retired since 1943 and those who come on the pension roll from now onwards, will be paid a pension on an index figure of 170. We will still have another class who will be paid on a lower figure than 170; some on as low a figure as 50 or 55, because they retired prior to 1940. I suggest to the Minister that it would not cost the State a large sum of money to put all these pensioners on an index figure of 170; that is, that every pensioner who is now receiving a pension from the State ought to receive it on the basis of an index figure of 170. They have all to pay present-day prices. There are not lower prices for pensioners who retired prior to 1940 as compared with those who retired since that date.

The Minister contends that you must pay some of them on the basis of an index figure of 170, because that is the minimum measure of justice which he regards as due to those people; whilst in the same town or city he expects others to live on a pension calculated on an index figure of 50 or 55. If the Minister examines this matter sympathetically, if he extends even the merest modicum of sympathy, I am satisfied that he must convince himself that the claims of those who retired prior to July, 1940, are undeniable. I hope that, even now, while he has been Pharaoh-like about this matter so far, he will feel an obligation on him to re-examine the matter, and, if not through the medium of this Bill, at least through the medium of another Bill to be introduced at an early date, will undertake to meet the claims of those pensioners who retired prior to 1940, and who, to-day, where they are lowly-paid State pensioners, and I plead especially for these, are in a very bad plight indeed.

Mr. Blowick

It is a pity that, when this Bill was being drafted, the Minister did not see his way to include a few very small classes in the community on whose behalf I want to say a few words. There has been on a few occasions here reference to what I think is the smallest group in the State —the Circuit Court officers, of whom there are only about two or three in each county. These people have been left out. They have absolutely no remuneration from the State, although they gave a lifetime of service to the State, and it is a great pity that they have not been included in a measure such as this. The Minister may claim that this is a Superannuation Bill and it would not be appropriate to include them here, but I think it could have been done. There are, as I say, only some two, three or four involved in each county—a very small section, a forgotten little section, if you like.

I raised my voice on their behalf here on a previous occasion and I raise it again now because no provision has been made for them. It may be contended that they are not established, but that does not get away from the fact that they gave a lifetime of service to the State, just as much as the established officers. They played a very useful part in the country's life, some of them having excellent national records, having done their bit in days gone by, when it was neither popular nor safe to do so, and I urge the Minister not to forget them. The amount of money involved would be infinitesimal.

The next section on whose behalf I plead are the ex-national school teachers. It has been brought to my notice on many occasions that some of these teachers are asked to subsist now on as low a pension as 15/- a week. I do not think there is any need to remind the Minister of the part they have played in the education of the youth of this country, nor is it necessary to remind him that, when a teacher retires at the age of 65, he has no other source of income or means of livelihood. It may be contended that, in rural districts, some of them have perhaps a small holding of land or some other small sideline, but, when they retire after a lifetime of teaching, it cannot be argued that they are able to take up any other employment or fend for themselves. The pension they are getting is absolutely inadequate, in view of the increased cost of living, to keep them in any condition of comfort or decency.

They are people who have a very natural and very laudable pride which prevents them from raising their voices on their own behalf, and it is very seldom that one of them will even approach a Deputy to put his case, because they are ashamed to admit that, in their last years, they are in poverty. I know ex-teachers who are in dire poverty, but who are ashamed to admit it, and who try to keep the best face out. In many cases, these teachers, because of the nature of their calling, are not in very robust health when they reach the retiring age. Many of them are in delicate health and require medical attention. They have played a very useful part and every one of them has a warm place in the hearts of their one-time pupils who are now grown to manhood and womanhood and who always look back on their teachers as next to the members of their own families.

Nobody would begrudge them a pension, in this age of apparent abundance of money for every other purpose, which would allow them to live their remaining years in decency and comfort. They are not in a position to engage in any other walk of life or to secure another means of livelihood. Many of them have absolutely nothing and many have retired to little cottages in the towns, and they are all precluded from enjoyment of the old age pension. It is past time for the Minister to make some provision for them. As in the case of the Circuit Court officers whom I have mentioned, they are only a very small section—two or three in each parish, and not even as many in some parishes. They are so small that they cannot make themselves as well heard as people who have been in other walks of life who could join organisations and bring pressure to bear in the usual organisational way on their public representatives. Their natural decency very often prevents them from admitting their poverty, and poverty is the only word which suits some of the cases I personally know of.

Another class is the rural postmen. The Minister may argue that this matter would be more appropriate to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That is perhaps correct, but nevertheless the Minister for Finance holds the public purse and if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs went to him with a proposal with regard to these men, he would have to examine it and the necessary money would have to come through his Department. These men play a very valuable part. Their lives are strenuous. They are out in all weathers and their work starts very early in the morning. Like the Circuit Court officers, the argument will be that they are not established, but that does not get away from the fact that they render very good service to the State in positions in which their honesty is tried on many occasions and in which the vast majority give long years of strenuous service, and they should not be forgotten.

It may not be appropriate to deal with this section now, but I want to bring the matter to the Minister's notice and to impress upon him the urgent necessity for doing something for them. Like the ex-national school teachers, they are precluded from the benefit of the old age pension. Everything seems to militate against them and their position does not tend to produce a good spirit among those who have not yet retired. When teachers who are working to-day and in the enjoyment of a salary which enables them to live in comfort look to the teachers who have gone before them and see their position, it does not conduce towards the giving of their best by these teachers to the cause of education. All the more credit goes out to them if they are giving of their best even with the danger light that, perhaps by the time they come out on pension, the cost of living may have increased to such an extent that the amount of the pension which they regard at present as adequate will be totally inadequate to support them.

The same remarks apply to rural postmen who are non-established. I would ask the Minister to have a discussion with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at the earliest possible stage with a view to including these officials within the scope of the Bill. When this House was so liberal in the matter of increasing Deputies' salaries and increasing the pensions of very highly-paid servants of the State, we should not forget the lowly-paid servants, the really hard toilers. It is not calculated to create respect for Parliament if the lower classes are by-passed, forgotten and turned down. Over some little quibble in regard to their being non-established or something like that, they are left to fend for themselves. That does not produce a good feeling throughout the country. In order that Parliament should enjoy the desired respect, it is absolutely essential that it should be strictly impartial and fair and that it should look after each section, no matter how small that section may be, with the same solicitude as it exhibits in attending to the claims of those who have a strong voice to enforce their claims. I suppose I should be ruled out of order if I referred to the case of old age pensioners and widows at this stage but, nevertheless, I hope the Minister will see his way to make some revision in regard to the treatment of these very deserving classes. Seeing that the Government is in the mood for spending at present, lavishly and liberally, I hope they will introduce a Bill to improve the conditions of these two sections—old age pensioners and widows in receipt of pensions.

Mr. Roddy

I wonder could the Minister tell us the number of people who would benefit if the provisions of the Bill were extended to cover the case of those who retired prior to 1940? What would it cost the State if provision were made for them? If the Minister has these figures, I should like if he would give them to the House when he is replying because then we would be in a position to gauge the impact of this additional cost on general taxation and also be able to form a more accurate opinion of the merits of the claim which these ex-civil servants are making at present. It appears to me, on the face of it, that morally there is no justification whatever for discrimination between civil servants who retired after 1940 and those who retired prior to that year. As a matter of fact, it would appear to me that these ex-civil servants are suffering from a double grievance. In the first place their pensions were based on a very low cost-of-living index figure. I think that Deputy Norton mentioned that the figure ranged from 150 to 185. Since then the value of the pound has depreciated very considerably. In fact, I should more correctly say that they are suffering from three grievances at present because they belong to the class of people with fixed incomes and the impact of the present high taxation hits that class of people more than any other class in the community. The latest Supplementary Budget has increased the burdens imposed on these people.

In all the circumstances, I think they have a very strong case. In fact I do not know that the Minister can give any adequate answer to the case they have made and can make, under this Bill or some other Bill. In any event, I cannot see why, morally or in equity, there should be any discrimination between those two sets of ex-civil servants, one retiring prior to 1940 and the other retiring subsequent to that year. I had not an opportunity of listening to the Minister's opening statement and I do not know what special case he made for civil servants who retired after 1940 or what special circumstances justify him in discriminating between those who retired after 1940 and those who retired previously. As a matter of fact, the civil servants who retired since 1940 have been more or less specially favoured in the treatment they received as compared with those who retired prior to that period. I do think in all seriousness that civil servants who retired before 1940 have an unanswerable case for special consideration in view of the circumstances of the time and in view of the changes that have taken place, financially and otherwise, since they were granted pensions.

There was one matter raised by Deputy Blowick to which I should like to refer, namely, the case of teachers retired on small pensions.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Roddy

Deputy Blowick was allowed to refer to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy will be brief, he may refer to it.

Mr. Roddy

I shall be brief. The claims of these teachers have been debated on other occasions in the Dáil and I really could never understand the attitude of the Minister in turning them down. Their number is very few to-day and I imagine that the amount of money necessary to deal with their claims would be very small indeed. I say that the country owes a debt of gratitude to these old teachers for keeping alive the spirit of nationality at a time when there was a danger of its becoming decadent. The changes which have taken place in this country since 1916 are due in a very large measure to the educational foundation laid by these old teachers. I consider that their claims are in a special category and, out of a sense of national gratitude, we ought, I think, to make some provision for them. As I say their claims for consideration were put forward here on a few occasions previously and on these occasions the Minister turned a deaf ear to the appeals made to him. If it is possible for the Minister to bring the case of these old teachers under this Bill I sincerely hope that the Government will give some consideration to the claims made for them to-day.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Norton raised a very wide issue in relation to this Bill. I do not suppose that he wants to apply a means test to ex-civil servants, but he wants the State to undertake to guarantee the value in goods of the pensions awarded to ex-civil servants. He does not see why, in justice, that particular proposition should be turned down. The position is that the State has not been able to guarantee the value of its currency in goods to any section of the community. If we are to take one particular group and say that they are to be guaranteed the value of their pensions in relation to goods when the goods are not there, other sections of the community will have to go short in order to fulfil the guarantee to the particular group who are selected. I wish it could be done; I wish that by some magic ring we could get such production as would enable us to guarantee our currency in terms of goods and that it will always give at least the same purchasing power.

As Deputies will readily admit, that is a wider problem and it is a problem that depends for its solution upon the productive capacity of our people— upon what we can do in the line of production. If we could add a certain percentage to our production, I have no doubt the price of goods would fall and that the value of money in relation to goods would go up so that, automatically, those on fixed incomes, pensioners or otherwise, would get some compensation for what they have lost in the past few years owing to the large increase in prices.

My first submission is that we cannot guarantee, on any permanent basis, the value of pensions in relation to goods. When the State employs civil servants or any other class of servants, there is a certain stated salary and a pension calculated on the basis of that salary by various means, all of which are known to the person when he becomes a servant of the State. During the war we interfered with the contract that the State had with civil servants who retired, particularly with servants who retired between July, 1940, when the stabilisation of salaries came into effect, and the end of the standstill Order.

It is to make restitution to that particular section, with whose contract we interfered or were forced to interfere because of the necessities of the emergency situation, that this Bill is introduced. We are making what restitution we can to them. If we were to step out of that particular class of civil servants and undertake to revise the basis of the pensions of civil servants who retired before July, 1940, there are lots of other classes of the community who say that they have the same right to full compensation, because of the increase in the cost of living, as those civil servants, and the bill, instead of being the small sum referred to by Deputy Norton, would become a very large bill indeed.

We are at present paying, between Post Office pensions and Civil Service pensions, in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 per year, and if we exclude old age and blind pensioners, the total annual bill of the State in pensions is in the neighbourhood of £2,400,000. If the Deputy wishes to make any calculation, he can work on the basis that even 10 per cent. will amount to £240,000.

Mr. Norton

The price of a Constellation aircraft.

Mr. Aiken

We are buying Constellation aircraft because we hope to be able to make some money out of them in order to pay better pensions and better wages.

Mr. Norton

That idea is simply crazy; you cannot make a bob out of them.

Mr. Aiken

Everything has to be taken into account in the development of the air, and so far as I can see to date, anyway, they have turned out fairly well for our national economy. They help us to balance our international payments. I grant you that the payment for a Constellation—incidentally, the Deputy is very much out in his figure as to the cost—is immediately a drain on our balance of payments, but we all hope—we all live in hope—that they will be able to pay their way.

People on the pension list of the State, and people not on the pension list of the State, were mentioned. Without putting on the pension list court officers, people such as Deputy Blowick referred to—without adding anything more—the present bill is costing the taxpayers £2,400,000.

Mr. Norton

Not this Bill?

Mr. Aiken

Pensions, excluding old age and blind pensions, are costing our taxpayers £2,400,000. What I want to do is to be just all round to the taxpayers as well as to the people on pension. There never was anything in a civil servant's contract or a teacher's contract that the pension he would draw at the end of his days would be sufficient to keep him at any particular standard of life. What they were told was that they would get a certain penssion which they could draw after a certain number of years' service. They were not told at any time that that sum of money would be able to keep them in all circumstances.

It is not a social service. They can draw the pensions whether they are rich or poor. We have small pensioners who have other means of income and we have large pensioners who have no other means of income. I do not believe anybody wants us to establish a means test for ex-State servants, seeing the violent objections there are to a means test in relation to the ordinary social service payments that we make.

Mr. Norton

Can the Minister say what the cost would be of revising the pensions of those who retired prior to 1940 to the level of an index figure of 170?

Mr. Aiken

No, I could not.

Mr. Norton

Does the Minister know that whilst he pleads that the State can do nothing for those who retired prior to 1940, every country in Europe where there is an organised and intelligent Government in office has already increased the pensions of persons who retired prior to the war? I think this is probably the only Government in Europe which has not increased prewar pensions. Would that fact induce the Minister to be a bit suspicious that he is not being fair?

Mr. Aiken

I do not know it to be a fact.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister make inquiries and, if my statement is proved to be true, will he relent and promise to examine his conscience?

Mr. Aiken

We have to run our own affairs in accordance with our ability to do so, irrespective of what other people do.

Mr. Norton

You are not doing a good job; you are only making a mess of it.

Mr. Aiken

So far we have made a good job of it.

Question agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 5th November.