Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jul 1949

Vol. 117 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 16—Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1950, for Pensions, Superannuation, Compensation (including Workmen's Compensation), and Additional and other Allowances and Gratuities under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1947, and sundry other Statutes; Extra-Statutory Pensions, Allowances, and Gratuities awarded by the Minister for Finance; increases in certain Pensions and Allowances; fees to Medical Referees and occasional fees to Doctors, etc.

As well as Vote 16 there are three other Supplementary Votes—Votes 46, 61 and 64.

The Minister wants to discuss them together?

Yes. They are all in the nature of token Votes for the sum of £10. Vote 16 deals with Superannnuation and Retired Allowances, Vote 46 deals with Primary Education, being a Supplementary Estimate for a total of £10; Vote 61 deals with certain Civil Servants in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and in relation to it also there is a supplementary total vote of £10; and, lastly, there is the Army Pensions Vote, also for a sum of £10.

The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to enable payment to be made in advance of the necessary legislation, in respect of increases in pensions to certain retired civil servants, members of the Garda Síochána and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and resigned and dismissed members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Similar Supplementary Estimates are being taken to provide for the payment of pension increases to teachers and to civil servants who were formerly employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Some of these matters I am mentioning generally will not have complete application to Vote 64, Army Pensions. There will be some details in which they may be changed. I have already introduced the First Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill to provide for the grant of increases of pension to the classes affected, and the Bill will be circulated during the coming recess. It would not be possible to have the necessary Bill enacted in the present session, but it is intended to commence the revision of pension payments fortwith.

The increases will be granted on the following basis:—Where the annual pension does not exceed £100, it will be increased by 50 per cent; where the annual pension exceeds £100 but does not exceed £150, it will be increased by 40 per cent., but the increase will in no case be less than £50; where the annual pension exceeds £150 and is less than £450 it will be increased by 30 per cent., but the increase will in no case be less than £60. There will be no increase that will bring the pension to more than £450 a year. No pension of £450 a year or over will be increased. The last item is to cover increases in certain pensions and allowances under the Army Pensions Acts and the Defence Forces pensions schemes.

In the case of civil servants, whose pensions include a bonus element determined by reference to the cost-of-living figure at the date of retirement, the increased pension will be subject to a maximum of the amount produced if the pension were revised by reference to a cost-of-living of 270 (i.e. the figure by reference to which Civil Service remuneration was revised in 1946). Similar appropriate maxima will also be applied to the increased pensions of other classes. These maxima are designed to ensure that no increased pension shall be greater than the amount which would be payable to a pensioner of equivalent status and service who retired after the general increase of remuneration granted in 1946.

Where emergency bonus has been included in the calculation of a pension, the part of pension related to the emergency bonus will first be deducted, and the remainder, being the pension on normal salary, will then be increased by the appropriate amount.

The increases will apply to the pensions of civil servants and Garda Siochána who retired in the normal course before the 1st July, 1940, the pensions of teachers who retired before the increase in teachers' salaries in September and October, 1946, and the pensions of the resigned and dismissed members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The increases will be payable as from the 1st April, 1949.

Civil servants and Garda pensioners who retired during the stabilisation period, 1st July, 1940, to 31st October, 1946, have already received increases in their pensions under the Superannuation Act, 1947, and the Garda Síochána (Pensions) Act, 1947. Their pensions were increased by reference to the cost-of-living figure at the date of the pensioner's retirement up to a maximum cost-of-living figure of 270. In some cases, the increases proposed under the Bill promised in the autumn would be more favourable to the pensioner than the increased pension payable under the Superannuation Act, 1947, or the Garda Síochána (Pensions) Act, 1947. It is accordingly proposed to apply the provisions of the Bill, where more favourable, to such pensioners with effect from April, 1949, instead of the increases granted to them under the previous Acts. The conditions that no pension will be increased beyond the amount determined by reference to a cost-of-living figure of 270, and that emeregncy bonus will be deducted in calculating the pension to be increased will, of course, apply.

It is proposed to make provision in the Bill enabling the Minister for Local Government to authorise increases to pensioners of local authorities on similar terms and conditions. The total cost to the Exchequer of the pension increases now being provided is estimated at £205,000 a year, exclusive of the cost of increases in pensions paid by local authorities.

The Gardaí and Royal Irish Constabulary widows' pensions will be provided by Orders. Those Orders can be made during the recess and the payments issued. The Department of Education will start on the payments to national school teachers, and as there are considerable numbers of these, it is expected that they will be fully occupied in making these payments until the House has reassembled. If, however, it is possible for them to attend to the secondary school teachers, an amending scheme can be made to cover this. Otherwise, the secondary teachers will await the passage of legislation.

The Department of Defence will be able to make payments by Order or by schemes under the Vote that I will introduce in a moment. The only extra people likely to be covered by the legislation in the autumn are widows and children of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, but I do not propose to make any payment to any of these until after the legislation has been passed.

From what the Minister has said, it is clear that the scheme will not be in full operation until the legislation has been passed. If the position in respect to teacher pensioners, for example, is that there is going to be a difficulty in getting the payments out, would it not be possible to make payments on account?

I propose to make payments during the recess— immediately

I understood the Minister to say that there was a delay in getting the payments out, owing to staffing difficulty. Probably I misunderstood him.

I propose to make the payments under the Orders that can be made. Payments can be made forthwith and it is proposed to do so.

I assume that these percentage increases will be graded in such a way—the usual way—that a man at £151 will not be worse off than a man at £149.

That is the reason why I said that, with regard to the pensioners over £100, where there is a 40 per cent. increase, no payment will be less than £50. It is to make provision against what the Deputy is arguing about that that has been put in.

The procedure was followed elsewhere, I understand, of having a minimum pension based on present needs. I do not know whether the Minister has examined that point, that is to say, to bring all pensioners up to a certain level. It is quite true that there is a substantial improvement now—for example, the pensioner who is receiving £100 will now receive £150—but there must be a certain number who are even below the £100 figure, and £50 in their case would scarcely bring them to the point where the pension would be regarded as reasonable in present circumstances. The claim of the pensioned teachers was that, as far as possible, they should be put on the basis of those who have come on to the new salary scale. There was also the question of women teachers who have been retired.

I am glad that the Minister has been able to meet the case of these pensioned teachers and I think that it is a very good thing indeed that they are getting these increases. I would like to know whether that point has been examined, about bringing those who were on very low rates, even substantially below the £100 figure, up to a certain minimum. I do not think that the amount involved could be very much. According to my recollection, there are about 200 of these teachers retired and although some of them live to a ripe old age, this problem is, as everyone knows, a disappearing one, since it refers only to teachers who were actually on pension before 1946.

As some other Deputies are interested in the Army and the Garda, I might make the point that those who have the advantage of being on the cost-of-living bonus will get more favourable terms than those who are on inclusive salaries because they are being taken at the figure of £270, which generally approximates somewhat to present circumstances. I suppose that is inherent in the situation.

In the case of teachers on pension, they were on the old inclusive scales and to that extent I am quite sure the case can and will be made that they are not doing as well as either civil servants, the Garda or even employees of local authorities. I think the arrangement probably will be that allowance will be made not only for the basic salary of the latter classes but that the cost-of-living bonus will also enter into the superannuation and that the increase therefore will be based on consideration of the amount of the bonus as well as the basic salary. They have that advantage over the teachers.

May I put in a word of explanation for the benefit of Deputies who are interested particularly in the Army Pensions Supplementary Estimate? The scale of increases outlined by the Minister for Finance will be adhered to in the main with regard to Army pensions but, as Deputies are aware, it would be unwise to apply the scales in exactly the same manner because in the increment scheme designed for others, those with the smallest pension get the highest percentage lift, and so on. The next highest pension gets less lift. With wound and disability pensions, obviously the person with the smallest pension would be the person with the slightest disability and the person with the highest pension would be the person with the greatest degree of disability, so that if we were to follow exactly the same lines it would mean that the greatest percentage increase would be given to those with the least disability and with the greatest potential for earning a livelihood over and above the pension and the smallest percentage increase would be given to the totally disabled exsoldier. So, in the case of the Army we are following the standard set down as closely as possible but the heavy end of the money will be given to the people with the greatest degree of disablement. I think that is generally accepted.

The overriding maximum of 50 per cent. will be adhered to with the exception of one or two very exceptional grades in whose case it would be an injustice to limit them to the 50 per cent. but the total money which will be expended on Army pensions will, of course, be within the sum allocated, which is strictly in relation to the total sum for Army pensions.

I would like to ask the Minister if people who suffered disablement and who come under the 1932 and the 1937 Acts will be covered by this particular Vote. It is not suggested, as far as I can see in the Supplementary Estimate which was issued, that these people are covered but perhaps the Minister will inform us as to that when he is replying.

They are covered.

I would say that almost all the categories of pensioners in whom Deputies are interested are covered and I am wondering why the Old I.R.A. are not included. Perhaps they are in it. I cannot say. As far as I could gather from listening to the Minister for Finance and to the Minister for Defence, the Old I.R.A. do not appear to be included and it seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs that the only section of the community of pensioners who are not being covered are the men who gave national service which brought about the establishment of this institution. I would ask the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence whether that is an oversight or whether it is intended to bring them in under some other scheme.

There is one question I would like to ask.

May I say for the information of Deputies who were not here that the discussion is covering Votes 16, 46, 61 and 63? They are token Votes, all relating to pensions.

I gathered that. I want to ask whether this will include widows, that is, if those widows who are in receipt of pensions at the moment will come within the increases that have been mentioned. I am not altogether clear on that aspect of it. I do think that all military service pensions should be increased also. I think that is the point which Deputy Traynor is making and I should like to support it—that all persons in receipt of military pensions, whether under the 1924 or the 1934 Act, should be included. The principal thing anyway is that there is going to be a general all-round increase and that is very welcome coming at this time just prior to the conclusion of this session of the Dáil. It may be that quite a number of special cases will not be caught under this Supplementary Estimate. If that is so, that is something which we shall have to take up with the Minister subsequently. However, I am glad that this opportunity has been availed of to make this all-round increase.

Mr. de Valera

Has the Minister any figures, in the case of teachers, for example, to indicate what is the minimum sum which is being paid at present? I understand that £50 is to be added to those pensions which are less than £100.

Perhaps I misled Deputy Derrig, but the increase is 50 per cent.

With a minimum of £50?

No. If the pension does not exceed £100, the increase will be 50 per cent. Where the pension is over £100 and not more than £150, the increase is to be 40 per cent., but in these cases no increase will be less than £50. When you get to the third grade, over £150 and less than £450, there is a 30 per cent. increase and no individual increase will be less than £60. In the lowest group, we have no minimum and the increase is to be 50 per cent. There are some pensioners with a pension of £50.

Mr. de Valera

Nobody will be receiving in the case of teachers less than £50?

I could not say. There are certain teacher pensioners who at the moment are getting £50. They will get a 50 per cent. increase; that is not £50.

Mr. de Valera

I suppose there are some getting less than that. With the 50 per cent. increase, if they still do not reach the £50 limit, you will make it £50.

No, the minimum of £50 applies in the second category.

Mr. de Valera

Then, in the case of teachers, you may have pensions which will be less than £50?

I do not think it is likely. Does the Deputy mean an increase of less than £50?

Mr. de Valera

What I am anxious to see is this: in that 200 group referred to by Deputy Derrig, there are some who had got very small pensions indeed, so small that they were almost negligible. They have had to try to live on these pensions up to this. It is quite obvious that if they were getting £20 they would be only getting £30 by an increase of 50 per cent. That seems miserably small. Their number also is very small. I was wondering whether the Minister could make an absolute minimum under which nobody would be receiving less than £50. Personally, I think it ought to go up to £100.

Does the Deputy mean that nobody should be in receipt of under £50 with the old pension and the increase?

Mr. de Valera

Yes.

I have not so provided.

Mr. de Valera

I ask the Minister to consider carefully those persons with such a miserably small pension that with the increase of 50 per cent. they do not reach £50. If they cover only a relatively small group, an effort ought to be made to provide for them. I met some representatives of these pensioners, and I was wondering whether it would be possible to provide in their case that there would be a minimum of £100. However, I can see at once that if you fix a standard in the case of one particular class, you will naturally be asked to extend it to any others who may fall into the same category as regards amounts of pension. The main thing to ensure is that where there are very small pensions you will not work simply to 50 per cent., which would still leave the pensions very small.

Could the Minister say how many teacher pensioners are in receipt of pensions of £34 or under?

There are certainly 150 in receipt of £50 and under.

Those who are under £34 will receive a 50 per cent. increase, so that they will be in receipt now of less than £50 with the pension, plus the increase. I take it that the plea of Deputy de Valera is that this small group in the lowest category might have reserved to them a minimum of £50 as their pension, plus the increase. There is such a small number the Minister might very well consider acceding to that.

I am sorry, but I have given a wrong figure. I was looking at the wrong column. There are 291 teacher pensioners under £50.

There seems to be still a number under £34 and the plea is that those who are now receiving under £34 and who are entitled to a 50 per cent. increase should be brought up to £50. The plea is that all should receive at least £50. There is such a small number of them that the Minister should consider the matter.

The Deputy could not confine that simply to teachers.

Mr. de Valera

That is the difficulty.

There are over 900 people on a pension of £50 and under.

Mr. de Valera

Otherwise I would have pressed for £100 minimum. I can see how you would widen the field.

As to those under £34, I have not got that figure. There are over 900 on £50 and under.

Deputy Derrig assumed that there would be less than 60 under £34.

The difficulty with having any minimum is that there is such a large class involved. Some Deputies introduced the question of military service pensions. They are not included in this for the reason that they were not, when given, supposed to be a gratuity intended for the maintenance or support of the beneficiary, but rather an acknowledgment of service rendered. They were never put on the basis of pensions, although the phrase was used in regard to them. Of course, our military service pensions are very costly. They cost nearly £400,000 yearly. The average pension would be about £30. If there is any minimum struck and if there is any question of bringing in military service pensions hereafter—I am certainly against it at the moment—then, of course, such an increase as would ensure that no one would have less than £50 could be very costly. Even with the class I am dealing with at the moment—civil servants, Gardaí, R.I.C. and teachers—there are over 900 people who are on the £50 and under scale. However, before the legislation goes through, I will have that considered, but the cost is something which has to be borne in mind.

I think I have cleared up the point with reference to Deputy Derrig. I do not know whether I put the thing wrongly or he took me up wrongly. So far as that lowly-paid group with pensions not exceeding £100 are concerned, the increase that is proposed is 50 per cent. The minimum of £50 and the minimum of £60 arise in connection with the second and third category. There are, Deputies will observe, two ceilings, so to speak, in this matter. One is the £450 limit. It is not merely that a person with £450 will not get any increase, but no increase will be given which will bring the pension higher than £450. A person just on the verge of £450 and who may seem to qualify for 30 per cent. increase, will not get that 30 per cent increase, but only such percentage as will bring the amount up to £450. In relation to that, there are the maxima I spoke of. I do not want to create any more anomalies; there are plenty of them at present. Therefore I want to establish the other maximum of which I spoke. I will not go beyond the amount to be produced if the pension is related to a cost-of-living figure of 270. That was the figure that operated in the 1946 revision and I want to keep to that.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share