Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1949

Vol. 118 No. 14

Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill provides for the increase of certain pensions payable in respect of public service. It adheres to the general scheme which I outlined to the Dáil on the 19th July last when token Supplementary Estimates for pension increases were before the House. The Bill authorises increases in certain pensions of less than £450 a year payable in respect of public service which have been calculated by reference to remuneration below the levels obtaining after the general increase in remuneration which took place towards the end of 1946. The pensions covered are those which were granted following retirement in the normal course and were being paid on the 1st April last to teachers, police, civil servants, widows and children of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, local and harbour authority employees and certain Electricity Supply Board employees whose pensions are at present restricted under the Emergency Powers (No. 244) Order, 1942.

In general the Bill provides that a pension will not be increased to a greater amount than would be payable to or in respect of a person of equivalent status and service who retired after the general increases in remuneration in 1946. Subject to this proviso the increases authorised in cases where no increase has previously been given are as follows:—

Where the pension does not exceed £100 a year, 50 per cent. of the pension; where the pension exceeds £100 but does not exceed £150 a year, 40 per cent. of the pension, but not less than £50; where the pension exceeds £150 but does not exceed £450 a year, 30 per cent. of the pension, but not less than £60, provided that no pension will be increased to more than £450 a year. Where a pension includes an element attributable to the payment of emergency bonus that element is to be neglected in calculating the increase, and ceases to be payable once the pension is increased. Increases are payable with effect from the 1st April 1949, or the date of commencement of the pension if that is later.

The pensions of civil servants and Gardaí Síochána who retired in the period from the 1st July, 1940, to the 31st October, 1946, when their salaries were stabilised, have already been increased under previous legislation. In most cases where retirement took place before the 1st July, 1943, the increased pensions are less than would be obtained by increasing the original pensions in accordance with this Bill. In such cases increases in accordance with this Bill are being given in lieu of the previous increase, with effect from the 1st April, 1949.

I have considered carefully the question of providing for a minimum increase, as was suggested when the Supplementary Estimates for pension increases were being discussed by the Dáil. In view of the very substantial percentage increase being given in the smaller pensions, I do not feel called upon to do so, particularly as any provision for a minimum increase would be likely to be applicable to a considerable number of pensioners, and would result in many of those pensioners receiving more than if they retired at a later date and had their pensions calculated on post-war rates of pay.

The total cost to State funds of the increases provided under the Bill is estimated at £200,000 a year, of which £119,000 will go to national teachers and £44,000 to civil servants. The balance of £37,000 will be divided among members of the Garda Síochána and Dublin Metropolitan Police, certain resigned and dismissed members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and a group of others. The total number of pensions payable from State funds which are being increased under the Bill is approximately 4,600.

Provision is not made in the Bill for the increase of pensions payable to the widows of Gardaí Síochána, or of resigned and dismissed members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who adopted the terms of the Dublin Metropolitan Police (Pensions) Order, 1922, and who retired after the amalgamation of that force with the Garda Síochána in 1925. It is considered preferable to provide for these increases by way of amendment to the various Orders regulating the pensions, in order that the increases may apply to pensions awarded in future as well as to those already being paid. Approximately 500 widows' pensions already in course of payment will be increased in this manner and 600 allowances to children of deceased members of the Garda Síochána and Dublin Metropolitan Police.

Provision is not being made for any increase in the compensation awarded under Article 10 of the Treaty to former civil servants or members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. These persons have enjoyed for many years the benefit of the enhanced compensation terms provided by Article 10. In many cases, the compensation payable is higher than the maximum amount payable under this Bill.

Increases to pensioners of local authorities and harbour authorities will be granted by the authority concerned, subject to the sanction of the responsible Minister. The increases will be on a basis similar to that applicable to civil servants.

While the House will not wish me to examine the provisions of the Bill in detail at this stage, I should like to indicate briefly the scope of the various sections. Section 1 contains the definitions; the second sub-section covers any pensions which were suspended on the 1st April, 1949, by reason of the pensioner's re-employment. Where a civil servant has been transferred to the service of a local authority or other public employment, his last employer will bear the cost of any increase in his pension subsequent to the date of transfer.

Section 2 is the important section and sets out the "appropriate sum", which is the increase which may be given subject to the general overriding consideration that no pensioner may receive more than would be payable if the pension were recalculated by reference to the increases in pay granted in 1946.

Section 3 provides for the increase of the pensions of police and civil servants, other than those increased under previous legislation, and the pensions of teachers. Section 4 provides for widows' pensions and children's allowances granted under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Officers Acts, and Section 5 for police and Civil Service pensions where increases under this Bill are being substituted for previous lesser increases given. Local authorities are covered by Section 6 and harbour authorities by Section 7.

Section 8 is of particular application. It applies to a person who has two pensions. No increase will be payable if the total of the pensions amounts to £450 a year or more, and subject to this consideration the increase given will be the appropriate sum calculated by reference to the aggregate of the pensions in the manner set out in Section 2.

Section 9 allows increases to be granted retrospectively from the 1st April, 1949, except in the case where the pension did not commence until a later date. Under Section 10 increases now being granted in pensions which were increased under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, will be calculated on the total amount at present being paid. Section 11 provides that any statutory provision which applied to a pension immediately before it was increased shall apply to it as increased, and under this authority increases in pensions will be charged to the same source as the original pensions. Section 12 provides that increases in teachers' pensions will be granted by the Minister for Education, police pensions by the Minister for Justice, post office pensions by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and all other pensions by the Minister for Finance.

Section 13 provides a slight easement in a provision in the Royal Irish Constabulary (Resigned and Dismissed) Pensions Order, 1924, which restricts to two-thirds of retiring salary the total which can be drawn by way of pension under the Order and pension in respect of service in another police force or public office. I propose to allow retiring salary to be taken at 1946 levels for this purpose.

Section 14 is another special provision of limited application to cover cases where the recovery of compensation in respect of the injury or death of a member of a police force led to the award of a reduced pension or sometimes to no pension at all. Section 15 enables the Minister for Finance to determine doubts and Section 16 provides for Electricity Supply Board employees whose pensions are at present restricted under the Emergency Powers (No. 244) Order, 1942.

Mr. Derrig

I regret that the Minister has not found it possible to introduce a section in this Bill to enable lower-paid pensioners, those, for example, under £50 a year or perhaps an even lower minimum, to be placed at a certain basic figure, irrespective of what the increase might amount to as a percentage. According to the figures given by the Minister, there are some 200 retired civil servants who are receiving superannuation under 30/- a week. I know that there are nearly 300 ex-national teachers who are also in receipt of pensions under £50 per annum. I have not got the figures for the other Departments. The Minister stated, when the Supplementary Estimate was under discussion here, that he thought there were some 900. If the national teachers in the class of lowly-paid pensioners are in proportion to the total number of national teacher pensioners as compared with the total number of pensioners who will benefit under this Bill, I think that perhaps the figure might not be so high. However, the Minister has mentioned a figure of 900. Having regard to the large number of cases which are covered, and the fact that there is a graded percentage basis and a means test, the expenditure, although substantial, is not nearly as heavy as might have been anticipated if, in fact, an effort were made to give compensation to superannuated servants of the State which would have some relation to the increase in the cost of living.

I should like to say, with reference to the cases of pensioners in receipt of small amounts, that of course they are a disappearing element. The large bulk of the pensioners who will benefit under this legislation will continue for a considerable time, but those who went out 15 years ago—some of them are out much longer—are obviously going to disappear pretty rapidly. The cost of living is not treating those old servants of the public very kindly. The cost of living has really increased during the past few years. As regards food and clothing, the price of which affects the poorer people more than the better off classes, the increase is definitely admitted in the official statistics.

In the present year, from mid-May to mid-August, there have been increase in respect of such necessary articles of food as potatoes and milk. We know that in the winter season the cost of some of these necessities increases still more. We know, too, that by reason of their financial position some of those pensioners have to make their purchases of necessities at higher prices than people in more comfortable circumstances. I have no doubt that the position will remain difficult for those people. There is no indication that the price of such necessary articles as I have mentioned is likely to fall. There is the danger that for some time to come there may be an increase. The devaluation which has taken place is, I think, likely to cause repercussions here similar to what it has caused elsewhere in the way of increasing cost of living, especially in the case of those who have only a small margin to meet the increased cost of the times.

The measure, I take it, is introduced in fulfilment of the pledges that were given prior to the general election. I think the Minister ought to give opportunities to enable the representatives of the associations in question to put their case before Deputies and so enable them, if they are in a position to do it, to secure amendments even though these may not be very substantial. Even though this is a Money Bill, they might be able to effect some improvement in it if such an opportunity were given to them.

The position, as I understand it, with regard to the particular class to which the Minister has not referred in Section 17 of the Bill, is that there is a general restriction providing that the conditions for increased pensions shall not apply to those who went out under Article 10 of the Treaty. It is stated by an association representing those who went out under the 1929 Act that definite pledges were given to them by the Parties now constituting the Government that they would do their utmost to have legislation introduced and passed through the Oireachtas to remedy the injustices of which they complained. In one case I notice it is mentioned that the amount would not be very great. It seems, therefore, that the Minister is likely to be taking his stand in this matter on the fact that he feels there is a principle at stake.

In the first place, he has stated that the particular class to which I have referred retired prematurely from the service of the Irish Government. There is a question whether, whatever about those who retired before 1929 and were entitled to go out voluntarily and to receive the appropriate increase in superannuation, the expression "retiring prematurely" covers fairly the cases of those who went out after the 1929 Act was passed. As I understand it, under that Act the officer who wished to retire had to go before a tribunal, where he had to prove that his conditions of employment were materially altered to his detriment, and if the court appointed by the Oireachtas came to the conclusion that his conditions of employment were so altered, surely we can hardly fairly describe them as not having had a reason? Whether we agree in general with the point of view of such officers, we must admit that the fact that they did go before a court and prove their case of having their positions of employment materially worsened shows they had a case to make which the Oireachtas recognised had to be made in that way.

As regards the point that they received their full legal entitlement as far as superannuation was concerned, that could be pleaded in respect of other cases as well. I think in this measure the Government are rightly not being bound entirely by legal entitlement. I take it they are approaching the matter on compassionate grounds, having regard to the serious increase in the cost of living, and in an effort to alleviate the circumstances of superannuated servants of the State. There was no overriding maximum before the 1929 Act, but in that Act there was an overriding maximum and those who retired afterwards were not in as favourable a position as those who retired previously and who have got the full benefit of whatever the cost-of-living figure was at the time.

The Minister may say that those persons took a certain decision, having regard to all the circumstances, and he is not willing to review their cases; but if, in fact, as seems evident from the representations they have made, that the present situation, as in other cases, is pressing heavily upon them and the superannuation benefit, whatever it may be, of 1949 in their case has a very much less purchasing power than in 1929, I think the Minister might try to effect a remedy. Even having regard to the sentiments which we know many of us on all sides of the House may have with regard to that particular class, nevertheless they have given good service to the State. They retired under the conditions I explained. They are worse off than those who went out before them. I have not figures as to the numbers, but it is stated in the reply from one of the political Parties which is the cornerstone of the Coalition that the amount involved could not be very large and would, in the nature of things, be a diminishing charge.

Captain Cowan

I want to say a few words on behalf of the people who are very poorly circumstanced because of the small pensions they are receiving. In doing that, I want to say that the increase given by the Minister to pensioners to the tune of £200,000 is appreciated. There are cases of hardship and, of course, it is difficult in any general scheme to provide for the elimination of those cases of hardship. But I would say to the Minister that perhaps the minimum pension could be increased. I do not think it would cost a considerable sum. It would relieve quite a considerable amount of the hardship which we discovered in examining individual cases.

There are particular people exempted from benefit under the Pension Increases Act. I feel the period has passed during which there should be a discrimination against those particular people. I know that, in respect of quite a number who are in receipt of pensions under Article 10 of the Treaty, that they, under that Article, were enabled to retire and get a substantial pension much earlier than they might and it is natural that there should be some resentment of their action at the time. But if we look at it from a broad point of view, their action in retiring at that time may have opened up opportunities for younger people to obtain employment and to gain a knowledge of administration, and the State is benefiting now from the experience in administration that has been received by those younger people because of the vacancies created through retirements under Article 10.

To some extent the same thing applies to the Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners who are on somewhat similar lines. Some of them at the time they retired had some hostility to the State. Some saw the opportunity of retiring with a pretty good pension early on. Twenty-seven years have passed. Feelings have mellowed a good deal. Those people now believe that they are being discriminated against. From the general viewpoint of the public good, I think it would be better if there was no section, even though it is a small section, which should feel that there is discrimination against it. For that reason I ask the Minister to consider bringing those excluded categories into the machinery of pension increases.

There is another section on entirely different ground. That is the section whose pensions exceed £450 per year. These pensioners are not very large in number. The Minister gave me the exact number in answer to a question but, since I did not anticipate this measure would come up for discussion to-day, I did not bring the information with me. These men reached a very high point in their particular professions by reason of their industry, hard work and ability. They reached what one might describe as the peak of their professions. They retired and their pensions fixed on the rate of retirement pay were in excess of £450 a year. They have been hit by the increase in the cost of living just as everybody else has been hit by it. They have a certain position to maintain. They contribute to the cultural work of the country. Because of the increased cost of living the purchasing power of their incomes has been considerably reduced. I think it is unjust that we should say to these people: "You have a pension in excess of £450 a year; that is a generous pension; although the cost of living has gone up and we feel that every section of the community should receive increases both in pension and in pay, you should get nothing." Because of the increased cost of living we have increased the pay of nearly every person in the State.

We have increased the allowances that are paid to Deputies. We have increased the salary attaching to the position of Minister. We have increased the salaries of the judiciary. We have increased the salaries of the higher civil servants and of every public official. Yet, we say to this small group of exceptionally distinguished people: "You have a pension of £500 a year; that may have been given to you before there was any increase in the cost of living; there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living and that £500 is not as good as it was; nevertheless, notwithstanding the fact that we have met every other section of the community, we will not give you a single ½d. increase." I think that is unjust and unfair. The amount of such an increase to these people would be very small. I appeal to the Minister to raise the ceiling above £450 and to grant increases to that very small section of ex-public servants to whom so much is due from the State.

Deputy Derrig mentioned an appeal that was made to the political Parties by the Association of Civil Service Pensioners prior to the general election of January, 1948. He quoted a reply given by the Fine Gael Party to that appeal. The reply was that they were in favour of an increase. I have before me a copy of that communication. It was sent to every political Party and every Party, with the exception of Fianna Fáil, replied stating that they committed themselves to supporting the association. Deputy Derrig quoted the Fine Gael reply. He did not say that Fianna Fáil did not commit themselves at all.

Mr. Beegan

They did not go on the market.

Captain Cowan

They did not commit themselves one way or the other. If Deputy Derrig had not anticipated me by endeavouring to make his case on what Fine Gael had said, I might have placed the complete correspondence on the records of this House. If his Party at the time had said: "If we become the Government again we will refuse to consider this," or "if we become the Government again we will consider it and we will grant it", then I could understand his point of view. But, having steered clear of that particular point, I will not follow my original intention of placing the correspondence in its entirety on the records of the House. It is sufficient for me to say that every political Party at that time, after consideration of the case made by the association, guaranteed to support the claims of the association if there was a change of Government.

I realise the Minister for Finance has very difficult problems to face and I think the House ought to sympathise with him because of that. He has to find increases in pay all round. He has to find the moneys recently voted for transport and other purposes.

He has to find the money, which will exceed £1,000,000, in connection with the additional payments to teachers. These are enormous burdens for the Minister to bear, and, in an approach to these problems, we must be realistic and appreciate and understand those vital problems that confront him. What I have been advocating this evening would not, I think, taking it on a general balance, amount to a very big sum. But the amount that would be payable, if my recommendations were accepted, while not very substantial in itself, would have a tremendous effect on the people who are affected— particularly on that very unfortunate section of the pensioner community who are compelled to exist on a totally inadequate pension, on a pension that is insufficient to enable them to keep body and soul together in ordinary frugal comfort.

While, as I said at the beginning, the increases that have been given are welcome, they are particularly welcome when they are given in circumstances such as the financial position and the financial demands that face the Minister and face the Government at the present time.

I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the suggestions I have put forward to him this evening and to endeavour to meet the additional demands that I recommend to him for consideration.

Mr. S. Collins

I think it is fair of Deputies in this House to meet the Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill with a hearty compliment. The Minister has gone a long way to meet long-outstanding just claims of pensioners. I say to him, on behalf of the pensioned teachers who have approached me: Well done. They appreciate, in no uncertain fashion, the circumstances under which the increases are given. Deputy Cowan has made a plea in connection with very lowly paid pensioners to which the Minister might well advert. There are sections of his argument with which I do not agree and with which I propose to deal later. It ill befits Deputy Derrig to do a moaning act here in a dishonest way about an increase of the cost of living that, he purports to suggest, is, in the main, an incident of the last two years, when he knows that statement to be completely untrue. He knows that he himself was not a person who could be described as most sympathetic to and understanding of the teachers—either pensioned teachers or the teachers actually serving. I am proud, and Deputy Derrig can have this back from me, as a member of the Fine Gael Party, that we have been able to implement our promise and give these people some ray of hope and take them off the subsistence or semi-starvation level. It is time Deputy Derrig woke up to the fact that he himself and his administration—as far as the teachers are concerned, pensioned or otherwise—have been completely discredited by the courageous approach of the new Government to their problem.

It might be a good thing if the Minister could consider the possibility of striking a minimum. There are certain limited numbers of people, to whom this Pensions (Increase) Act is going to apply, that even an increase of 50 per cent. in their pension is not going to ameliorate their conditions to give them any standard of life. I am assured that the numbers so affected are small. Where a pensioner is receiving £50 a year, or less, this Dáil, in a spirit of Christian charity if nothing else, should fix at least a 100 per cent increase for that category of pensioner. We all know perfectly well that, as far as that particular class is concerned, it is a rapidly diminishing and dying class. It is very hard for a person who has occupied some position of responsibility in the State to have to eke out his last days in practically semi-starvation as many of these pensioners are doing now.

I do not subscribe to Deputy Cowan's rather ad misericordíam appeal for certain people who elected to take a certain course under Article 10. I think a lot of those people did it deliberately and that many of them opted to take certain favourable conditions, that they could avail of them, for the purpose of starting themselves in another walk of life. It is easy to say that feelings have mellowed in the meantime. I would hate anybody to think that I had any discrimination against or any animosity towards that class, but I feel that many of them, at an early age, had a pension with which to face the economic situation of the last 27 years and that they were infinitely better off than many people who had to compete against them in the ordinary maelstrom of life. If money is to be squeezed out of a hard pressed Exchequer I would far sooner see it expended to raise to a certain fixed minimum the amount of pension of any servant of the State rather than turn around and give further consideration to those people. I have a feeling that Deputy Cowan is perfectly sincere and honest in the case he makes. But if I think that if any further money is to be squeezed out of the hard-pressed Exchequer I would rather see it go by way of a 100 per cent. increase to the £50 or less than £50 pensioner than to start considering people who opted, under Section 10 of the Treaty, to go out under what were then very favourable conditions and out into a situation where they could start or re-establish themselves in life at a comparatively young age with a pension which they could not hope to obtain otherwise unless they had given many further years of service in the Departments they were in.

I advocate in no uncertain fashion the responsibility of the State to its pensioners—to people who have given service to this State—that they should at least be brought up to a reasonable level at which they can exist and not have them existing as many of them are existing at the moment, in semistarvation conditions. I do not consider that you can make a valid case for reopening, 27 years afterwards, or 25 years afterwards or 20 years afterwards, the case of people who, in their own deliberate judgment, took a certain course and, because their judgment proved to be wrong and they were not able to do better, that we should now kind of turn around and say: "We forgive your taking all the benefits you got then and we are now going to take you on as a burden". I do not think that is a logical argument.

Captain Cowan

Does the Deputy not take into account the change in the value of money?

Mr. S. Collins

My contention is that they came into the economic field in this country and on to the labour market that they could supply, so to speak in a far better equipped position than many of the people who had to compete with them. They did that in a deliberate way and got certain very substantial advantages. If they have not been successful, it is not our duty now to compensate them for that lack of success. I think there is a fair basis for Deputy Cowan's argument that the ceiling pension should not be fixed at £450. Again I feel, however, that the strength of his argument might be lessened by the fact that if these people are of the extraordinary ability, cultural value and experience that Deputy Cowan suggests, we know that many of them on retirement have found certain jobs and small occupations to supplement their incomes.

Captain Cowan

They are all over 70 years of age.

Mr. S. Collins

It does not matter. I know a good many men who have retired in this city who are over 70 and who are engaged in small commercial occupations. I do not think we should start advocating increases in the top scale pensions before we have dealt with the problem of raising the standard of the lowest type pensioner. I say to the Minister, in welcoming his Bill and giving the Second Reading of it wholehearted support, that if any more money can be found he should use it, every halfpenny of it—and he will have my blessing in doing so—in raising the level of the most lowly paid pensioners rather than adding to the pensions of any other strata. I should like to see a minimum fixed so that no pensioner would be drawing less than £100.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Do réir dealraimh, níl líon an Aire leathan go leor chun na cásanna go léir go mba cóir, dar liom, go mbéadh baint ag an mBille seo leo a chlúdach. Tá cás amháin a cuireadh fém bráid, cás ina bhfuil an pinsean fé bhun £100, agus is dócha go bhfuil roinnt bheag eile cosúil leis. Sílim go mba chóir don Aire an cás atá i gceist agam do leigheas.

One case in particular that has come to my notice may be typical of a small number of others. It would seem that certain classes of teachers in national schools do not benefit in the same favourable way under the proposals contained in this Bill as other members of the profession do. I have been given particulars of one case which I would like to bring to the Minister's attention, which, as I say, is, perhaps, typical of a small number of other cases that I think should be covered. It is the case of a junior assistant mistress who retired after the 31st October, 1946. I understand that cases such as that are not covered by this measure at all. The amount of pension awarded to the teacher in question was £74 13s. 6d. That is a pension in the lower category altogether and there was provision made under a Pensions Order some time last year by which that pension was increased by the sum of £15. Had that case been dealt with under this measure, the amount of the increase would be £37 6s. 9d. instead of the £15 awarded. What I want to know is: cannot a case like that be provided for under this Bill without making the financial burden by any means much more severe? The extra amount that would have to be provided in order to cover such cases would be very small. It is a type of case with which all sections of the Dáil should have sympathy, cases referred to previously in which the pension is less than £100 a year.

I have been in touch with the Department of Education about this case but I am told that it is not a case that is dealt with under this measure. First of all, when I heard of the case I was under the impression that it was covered by Section 2, sub-section (1) (a) and that there would be an automatic increase of 50 per cent. in the amount of the pension. Then I discovered afterwards that the Bill does not apply to pensions of this nature at all but only to those teachers who retired before the new scales of salaries came into operation on the 31st October, 1946. These are the only remarks I have to make in regard to this piece of legislation. There seem to be anomalies even though the net appears to have been spread fairly widely. I should like to ask whether cases of that nature could not get the benefits that are provided for under this measure whereby the pensioner would get a 50 per cent. increase instead of the small increase awarded.

Mr. Byrne

I shall not delay the House because other Deputies have already given expression to the views which I wish to put forward. I only desire to repeat that it is a pity, in view of the importance of the Bill and of the good reception that has been accorded to it by seven-eighths of the pensioners, that there should be one-eighth left with a grievance. Numerically the one-eighth left with a grievance may not seem very large compared with the seven-eighths who are satisfied with the Bill but, nevertheless, there are 200 or 300 civil servants who are receiving 30/- a week and under at the moment and the increases which they are going to get will not be sufficient to compensate them for the loss which they suffered by reason of the increased cost of living spread over eight or ten years during which they had to exist on that small pension. Then there are 300 or 400 retired national teachers with pensions of £1, 25/- or 30/- a week and the increase given to them is very small indeed. I have also had a number of letters from retired Dublin Metropolitan Policemen and in some of these letters the famous phrase of the late General Michael Collins is quoted:—

"They shall be treated not less favourably than those who remained on."

They say that they are being treated less favourably, in fact that they are being passed over altogether.

I understand that those in receipt of pensions under the Transferred Officers Act of 1929 are to get nothing at all. I appeal to the Minister to go a little further and give these people who are dissatisfied and feel they have been selected for a sort of victimisation some increase. It is well to remind people that promises made at a general election should not be broken. I remember the circular which Deputy Cowan referred to being sent to all the Parties asking them if they would support the Civil Service Pensioners' Organisation in their effort to improve the pensions paid to their members. I remember all the answers given to that circular, but I do not remember any answer coming from the then Government Party. With others, I signed the form sent out and agreed to support their claim for an increase as far as lay in my power.

I rise now to support this measure, with an appeal to the Minister to consider the appeals made with regard to those who are on small pensions and to ask him not to forget the old Dublin Metropolitan Policemen who retired on the promise that they would be looked after when the time came, and also the widows of some of these men to whom that promise was made. These men accepted the word of those who were in public life at that time and carried out the instructions given them and they now feel that they have been victimised. A number of those who retired, as well as those who continued to serve for some time and who were in the service for a long time, went out on very small pensions. Some of the letters I received drew attention to the fact that they are getting nothing, that they will not benefit at all, and I think something should be done for them.

The Civil Service Pensioners' Association also points out that some senior civil servants who gave their whole lifetime to the service went out on the maximum pension at the time, but that that pension would buy exactly double the quantity of food at the time which it would buy to-day.

Everybody knows that clothing has nearly doubled in price since some of these senior civil servants went out on the maximum pension, so that that pension is now equivalent to less than half of what it was at the time of their retirement, I, therefore, appeal to the Minister to see that the promises made by different Parties to the Civil Service Pensioners' Association will be carried out.

I also understand that a large number of Post Office pensioners have only miserable pensions and were hoping that something better would be done for them than is being done under this Bill. With other Deputies, I sympathise with the Minister in his difficulties. I know it is easy for any of us to keep on making requests for more money. But, if it was essential for emergency purposes, the Minister would be able to find millions tomorrow. I hope, therefore, that he will find a little more money to meet the demands of those who served the country so well in the past.

Dr. Brennan

Like Deputy Cowan, I sympathise with the Minister in the difficulties which must naturally face him in the introduction of such a measure as this. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Bill have gone a good way to relieve some of the difficulties under which certain pensioners were suffering. I think, however, that he should go a little bit further. Dealing particularly with the lower class of pensioners, I entirely subscribe to the views expressed by Deputy Seán Collins. I do not, however, subscribe to the deduction which might follow from a careless reading of his speech— that the Party to which he belongs is the Government. He must realise that that is not so. If not, the sooner he does the better. The success of this Bill, which is intended to do justice to a great many sufferers, depends on the support which it receives in this House. The Government does not consist of one Party, but of several Parties brought together to give effect to measures such as this. We may hope that the time will come when the Party spirit will disappear in the discussion of Pension Bills and such other matters as are of common concern.

The case made by Deputy Cowan was one which the Minister should consider, particularly in relation to those who went out under Article 10. I think it was quite unfair on the part of Deputy Collins to reflect on the motives of those who took advantage of the position created by Article 10 of the Treaty in suggesting that a good many of them started in competition with the difficulties of life on a much safer, sounder basis than those who did not retire. If Deputy Collins took an interest in the affairs which faced the country when Article 10 became effective, he would realise that there were very noble motives in the minds of those who took advantage of that Article. It is quite unfair to suggest, or to convey, that those people, in availing of the opportunities that were afforded to them, were doing something which was to their advantage and against the national interest. I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the case of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, particularly those who retired under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Their number is now very small. I would ask him to consider their position favourably, and to bring their pensions up to what will now prevail under this Bill. I have been informed that the number of pensioners is well under 200. While the Minister has, naturally, to be very careful of the expenditure of every penny of public money and while the House agrees with him on that, I think he should reconsider the attitude which he has taken in regard to these pensioners and bring them in under this Bill.

Deputy Byrne reminded us that, at the general election, the Parties which now compose the Government all replied to a circular which was sent to the various Parties, and gave a promise to do their best, if and when the opportunity arose, to have the grievances mentioned rectified. It does not follow that, because Fianna Fáil did not reply, they were not in favour of that. If one is to judge from the speech of Deputy Derrig, there can be no doubt that there is some sympathy on the Fianna Fáil benches for this measure. I think that, in dealing with matters of this kind, if we had less recrimination from all sides of the House and more concentration on the affairs with which we are concerned, we would do our business better and be representing the interests of our constituents more adequately.

Mr. McGrath

I am sure everyone is glad to see the pensioners getting an increase to enable them to meet the increase in the cost of living. I cannot understand why there is one body, the Old I.R.A., left out of this Bill. I am speaking of a class of people who are destitute, people who got pensions, or what was called a special allowance, under the 1946 Act. They seem to be completely forgotten under this Bill. Disability pensions have been increased. I am sure the Minister is well aware that, in order to qualify for the special allowance, one must be incapable of self-support. It seems strange to give an increase to disability pensioners and not to give it to people who are incapable of self-support.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill has reference to people getting pensions in respect of public service. There are military service pensions for those the Deputy speaks of.

Mr. McGrath

I contend that the men I am talking about gave very good public service.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But not in the sense that this Bill gives pensions.

Mr. McGrath

I want to protest against these people being left out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can speak on what is in this Bill and nothing else.

Mr. McGrath

I want to ask whether I cannot speak on what is not in the Bill.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

On a point of order, cannot the Deputy speak on what is not in the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy were to do that, he would be speaking on something that was outside the scope of the Bill. For example, he could not refer to drainage on this Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

Would Deputy O'Brien like to discuss old age pensions on this Bill?

Mr. McGrath

I was referring to people who got pensions under the 1946 Act and who are really destitute now, I contend that from a couple of Government Departments circulars have been sent to local authorities since 1946 requesting them to give increases to people to enable them to meet the increased cost of living. I maintain that those men are entitled to an increase owing to the increase that has taken place in the cost of living since 1946. It seems to me that one particular section of the people is being left out of this Bill, and I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider that position.

Mr. McGilligan

I suppose that when the people who refrained, if they did not refuse, to give pensions in an earlier day feel it necessary to speak on this, and complain of how meagre the terms of the increases are and argue the point without feeling any shame, any comment of mine would not have any effect on them. Deputy Derrig complains that compensation is not being given here on a fair scale. I think it stands a pretty good comparison with anything that was done previously in this matter. The Deputy also thinks that an opportunity ought to be given to the representatives of different associations to put their case to Deputies so that amendments might be moved to the measure. I announced the terms with regard to all these pensions in July of last year. Surely the Deputy will agree that there was plenty of time, in between, for any association interested in any group of pensioners to make representations. I have received quite a number of communications on this subject. I have been approached and interviewed by nearly everybody interested in these associations as well as by individuals.

Deputy Cowan with other Deputies raised the question of a minimum pension. This Bill provides a better percentage increase at the lower end of the scale than most of the other pension measures. That attitude was adopted quite deliberately. The position of the teachers weighed most in the balance when the final decision was being taken. Having given what is a very substantial increase at the lower end of the scale, it was decided not to give a minimum pension. Personally, as far as I am concerned, it is not so much a matter of the money that is involved, although that might turn out to be considerable. There is this difficulty: if I were to establish a minimum pension with regard to the group of pensioners now being dealt with, must I not maintain that in the case of every pensioner who at any time comes under the control of the State? Otherwise, I would have this desperate anomaly that people who might go out hereafter as a result of short service and get a small pension, even though it was related to an increase in pay, might be getting less than the pensioners I was dealing with under this Bill.

I think the House ought to bear in mind that the people who are getting very small pensions, and whose pensions will not be very much even when raised by the 50 per cent., are people who must have had extremely short service. It is quite possible that through ill-health some had to retire after a very short period of service. The proposal is that we should make an adjustment of pensions, whatever the amount might have been, earned by service, because of their depreciation in value owing to the increase in the cost of living. That is the case that is made with regard to these people.

The case I make with regard to the Article 10 people is entirely different. I think a good deal of undeserved sympathy has been excited over these people because of the atmosphere bred by the use of the words "discrimination" and "resentment"—and Deputy Byrne added the word "victimisation". That is not the case with regard to the Article 10 pensioners. As regards the Article 10 pensioners, I could quote Michael Collins's words as quoted by Deputy Byrne. Those people were promised that they would not be less favourably treated than those who remained on. That promise has been completely fulfilled. These people are better off than the people who remained on, but they are now asking for something additional and I do not think they are entitled to it.

There were at least two reasons that drove people out of the service: one was the question of the change of Government, and the second—and that is the group that is more under observation now—concerns people who retired at a later stage because they said their conditions of service had been worsened. These people went to a court and they had rights and they established those rights before the court and they got every penny that was due to them. If the particular worsened conditions that they complained of had been applicable to themselves only, and if they could have made the case that there was some victimisation or discrimination or some marking them out for worse treatment than their colleagues, then undoubtedly there would have been grounds for complaint. But they would not accept the conditions that those who remained on in the Irish Civil Service did accept. They had resort to the courts and they got added years and increased pensions built on these added years of national service. They have had increased pensions since they retired.

I met representatives of these people recently and I made an offer to them— not that I thought that offer would be seriously considered. I did offer them that I would go back over the years and re-assess their pensions as if they had not taken Article 10 terms but had just gone out like an ordinary civil servant. I said I would have to make some calculation of the benefits they got in the years between. They would not have that at all; they nearly ran out of the room. They wanted the Article 10 rates increased by what we are giving to the people who did not get Article 10 conditions. These people, rather than being at a disadvantage over the years, have had a considerable advantage. It looks as if the current is setting a little against them at the moment. They put up the plea that the cost of living is affecting them. The cost of living has the same effect on both classes, but the Article 10 people had a better protection, whatever the cost of living has been over the years; they have had that protection over all the years.

I have examined cases without the slightest trace of resentment or animosity. I may say I have no sympathy with them. The more their case is examined the less justification appears for the claim that they make. Whatever their position is, they placed themselves in that position under the old Act. Over the years it was a very favourable position, but they are not inclined to weigh that in the balance. I do not think they have any case and I do not intend to spend any more time or waste any more sympathy on them.

I have been asked with regard to people who are over £450. It does seem somewhat anomalous that we should stop at that point. I am not speaking now with my mind riveted entirely on increased pension legislation, but, where people are being dealt with, and where there are classes to be considered, it is always the people at the lower end of the scale who get the better treatment. That is the case here. I cannot say cold-bloodedly that where there is a certain amount allowed for compensation I thought of dividing it out. We take two or three ways of arriving at a sum that we think would meet whatever hardship there might be on pensioners through an increase in the cost of living and we calculate in order to see how it could best be divided.

The teachers were a complication. The position of the teachers forced us away from a calculation based entirely on the cost of living and into association with a new cost-of-living figure. The case of the teacher pensioners drove us to this matter of the 50 per cent. in the low ranges. There were examples of pension increases granted in other countries that fell for comparison. When I was speaking with my colleagues I did refer to the legislation passed in England. At no time in England did they give any increase equal to the 50 per cent. that we give. They also made a distinction between the married pensioners in that group. They took into consideration the single man with something in the nature of a dependent and they had a different scale for the single pensioners without dependents.

In the first legislation they had a ceiling of £300 with regard to married men and £225 in the case of single men. In their latest legislation they have raised these ceilings to £450 for the married men or the single men with dependents and £350 for the single men without dependents. The civil servant did get alternative conditions. I am not speaking with the greatest possible precision on this matter, because I have not had it under consideration for long. Once the civil servant went above £400 the highest rate of increase given to him was 10 per cent. and it was scaled down to 7½ and 5 per cent. when you got to the £600 pensioners. In England they have a means test and they do not allow the pension to rise to these high points.

When I look at the group who are excluded here because of the £450 ceiling, there are a number of people classified as members of the judiciary, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and more or less people of that type. Outside that group there are a certain number of civil servants and a very small number of the Garda, but the average pension of the civil servant and of the Garda omitted from this is £600 a year. There are some lower and some higher, but that is the average. If I adopted anything like the English method I would be giving these people 5 or 6 per cent., but I would have to subtract from that somewhere else. We thought it better to have this ceiling.

There is no great logic in the matter. The cost of living has its impact on the man with £500 in much the same way, I suppose, as it has upon the man with half that sum; but the man with £500 has a little more slack to gather in than has the man on the £200 mark. That is a calculation that did enter into our considerations.

The case was raised of a junior assistant mistress who retired since 1946. That being so, she is ruled by the 1946 legislation and, even if she did merge into this, she would be ruled by the maximum given under the 1946 legislation. There are two overriding standards in that. One is the £450 ceiling. The other is that nobody can do better than the 1947 code which related to 1946 conditions. Therefore, that lady could not have done better than she has done.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

This case is typical of a small number of others.

Mr. McGilligan

There must be quite a number of them. May I say to the Deputy that he was responsible for that? I am not bettering it.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

For what?

Mr. McGilligan

For the 1947 legislation which accepted the 1946 conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 14th December.