Does this apply to widows' pensions for widows of members of the Garda Síochána?
Committee on Finance. - Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1949—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
There is an Order which will deal with those.
Under this?
No, I shall be moving an Order immediately.
Will the percentage be the same under the Order?
Yes—or, at any rate, it is under the same scheme. The Deputy should refer to No. 5 of the Order of Business.
Will the percentage increase to be made under the Order be the same?
I shall deal with that on the Order.
You cannot say anything about it at the moment?
I can if the Deputy would like me to, but it would be more appropriate on the Order.
On Section 2, I have two amendments to the Schedule of the Bill. I am told by the Ceann Comhairle that they are out of order, that they seek to impose a charge and cannot be moved by a private Deputy. I should like to mention again some cases to which I referred last week. They come under sub-section (1) (a) of Section 2. They belong to the class of lowly-paid pensioners. I mentioned last week certain classes of junior assistant mistresses. The type of case I have in mind is that of teachers who retired after the new scales of salary came into operation on, I think, the 1st October, 1946. I gave one instance of such a pensioner who on retirement early in 1947 got a pension of £74 a year and the only addition she can get to that now is £15.
I think it would be possible for the Minister to provide that in the case of these lowly-paid pensioners, the minimum of 50 per cent. increase or at least a minimum of £50 would be paid. It seems also that there was a recommendation made on this particular point by the Roe Commission and that the Government has not accepted it. If it is possible to soften the Minister's heart, I should like to appeal to him again in regard to these cases. I do not know what extra expenditure would be involved but I think the number of cases must be very small. The only thing I am pleading for now is that the 50 per cent. increase be allowed in the case of pensions awarded to junior assistant mistresses, who retired after the new scales of salary came into operation and who would not have, in the calculation of their pension, the full benefits of these new scales of salary. When I mentioned the matter last week the Minister did not seem to be inclined to yield anything. I hope that he has been able to examine the matter since and that he is now in a position to announce a change of heart on his part.
The amendment is out of order.
I was not speaking on the amendment. I was speaking on Section 2.
I have not changed my attitude from last week.
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I submitted amendments to this section which I thought would be in order.
However the amendments have been ruled out of order because there happen to be within that particular section officers of vocational education authorities, for one half of whose pensions the State is responsible. Because their case happens to be within the section, the amendments which I intended to propose are out of order. I regret this very much because the amendments were designed to do a measure of justice to a number of pensioners affected by the section. The Irish Local Government Officials' Union, which represents these particular pensioners, are very keenly interested in this particular section which the pensioned officials of local authorities consider is doing them a very great injustice. This section imposes a ceiling of £450. That is considered unjust in the case of a number of pensioners who retired before the 1st July, 1940, on fixed pensions exceeding £450. They receive no increase. If they had retired before the 1st July, 1940, on variable pensions adjusted under Section 79 (2) of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948, they would have been entitled to pensions substantially higher than the maximum of £450 permitted by this Bill. If they had retired after the 1st July, 1940, and before the 1st July, 1946, on fixed pensions under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act of 1948, and on the terms of the circular letter of the 14th February, 1948, they would also have been entitled to a very substantial increase, amounting in some cases to 30 per cent.
In view of the fact that there are those classes, some of whom are entitled to increases bringing them substantially above £450, it seems to me and it seems to them very unfair that this restriction should be imposed in this section. The number of persons affected are not very many and the amount that would be involved, as far as local authorities are concerned, would not be very much. I would press the Minister, because it is all I can do now that the amendment has been ruled out of order, to agree that the ceiling of £450 would be removed so far as this small number of local authority pensioners are concerned, that there should be an improvement on the increases set out in Section 2 and that the increased pensions should operate in the case of local government, mental hospital and certain Electricity Supply Board pensions with effect from the 1st November, 1946. As I said on Second Reading, the imposition of this ceiling is inequitable because it tends to punish financially those who during their working lives forged ahead with initiative and industry, so that they were entitled to retire on substantial pensions.
If they had not the same initiative, the same energy, or if they had not made the top grade, as it were, they would have been entitled to substantial increases in their pensions now. But because they did make the grade and retired with pensions exceeding £450 they find now that their pensions will not be increased.
As I say, the Bill affects only those local government pensioners who retired prior to 1st July, 1940, and, to a lesser extent, a small number who retired in the period from 1st July, 1940, to 1st July, 1943. Most local government pensioners were treated fairly under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act of 1948. The small number for whom I am now speaking, who retired prior to 1st July, 1940, on fixed pensions, who were the only ones left out of the 1948 Act, and who are now nearly all 80 years of age or over, should in fairness receive treatment similar to the treatment afforded under the 1948 Act to those local government pensioners to whom that particular Act applies. I am informed and believe that they were bitterly disappointed at being left out of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act of 1948 and they look forward to some measure of justice now. I would ask the Minister, as the number concerned is small, to agree to make such amendment as is necessary in the Bill to do a measure of justice to those particular individuals.
From a list of pensioners affected by this legislation and by the Act of 1948 I see that many who came within the Act of 1948 and who retired between 1st July, 1940, and 1st November, 1946, on fixed pensions revised under the Act of 1948 got increases such as these: from £500 to £650; from £450 to £585; from £500 to £637 10s.; and from £500 to £562 10s. In respect of officers who had variable pensions and who retired prior to 1st July, 1940, I see increases given under the Act of 1948 as follows: from £356 to £475; from £915 to £1,193; from £333 to £504; from £306 to £459; from £388 to £565; from £410 to £594; and from £325 to £504. The small number of persons on whose behalf I am now speaking and who retired prior to 1st July, 1940, on fixed pensions exceeding £450 were debarred under the 1948 Act and they are also debarred under this Bill.
If the Minister is adamant that under this Bill he is not going to increase the ceiling beyond £450 for anybody, then there is nothing that can be done about it. But I would ask the Minister not to take that particular line because, as I say, in these cases, the number concerned is small. They might have been and perhaps should have been included in the 1948 Act. They were left out of that Act. They felt a great grievance and they are anxious that this opportunity should be taken to put them on a reasonable basis of fair play and justice. We are entirely in the hands of the Minister in regard to that; but I would press him as strongly as I possibly can to agree to an amendment that will do justice to these particular people.
Mr. Byrne
I had intended to give my full support to Deputy Cowan's amendment if it had been in order. Now all I can do is to join with him in the appeal he has made to the Minister to remove the ceiling of £450, because it does cause grave injustice to a very small number of old hands who served in various departments in the Dublin Corporation especially and a few in the Electricity Supply Board who had been transferred originally from the Dublin Corporation. I think the number concerned is only nine. These people served for 40 years as heads, second heads and third heads of various departments in the Dublin Corporation. They are men who shared in the fight for the independence of this country. They carried on in their departments during very difficult times. They reached the age of 65, however, at some period prior to 1940 and had to retire.
I could give dozens of names which would be familiar to the Minister, and I know that if he could do anything personally for these people he would be glad to do it. They served the municipality and the country well. They had good appointments and lived up to the standard to which their salary allowed them at the time. But they had to retire before 1940 and as they had reached their maximum they got a pension of £450. Since 1940 the cost of living has gone up considerably and these men should not be allowed to suffer hardships. They are trying to live up to the standard they lived up to when they came out on pension first. Their pensions have been reduced in value to a considerable extent so far as rent, clothing and the cost of living generally are concerned.
I ask the Minister to remove the ceiling of £450 and fix a pension for these people which will leave them in a position to buy the same quantity of food, to pay the high rates and other expenses and to meet the present high cost of living. It would be very easy for the Minister or any actuary to find out what it would be necessary to give to these individuals to enable them to live on the same standard they were living on at the time they were awarded the maximum pension. Their pension should be raised to a figure which would enable them to buy the same quantity of goods now as they bought when they went out on pension.
I join with the previous speakers in making a plea to the Minister on behalf of those local government officials who retired prior to 1940 and who, unfortunately, were not covered by the provisions of the Local Government Superannuation Act of 1948. I gladly acknowledge that the present Minister had nothing to do with that omission. In so far as it seems to have been an act of discrimination against that section of the officials who retired prior to 1940, I am supporting the plea on the ground of injustice rather than on any other basis. The House will appreciate what the position is. At the time the 1948 Act was going through four classes of persons fell to be dealt with: those who retired before the 1st July, 1940, with a variable pension; those who retired before the 1st July with a fixed pension; those who retired after the 1st July with a variable pension and those who retired after the 1st July with a fixed pension. The people who retired previous to the 1st July, 1940, with a fixed pension were excluded. The other three classes were dealt with. I may point out that the fixed pension was not a matter of choice for those who retired previous to the 1st July, 1940. They were excluded for some reason or another which nobody seems to understand. That is why I say there is a sense of injustice felt by those people. They are small in number and, by reason of age, are a dwindling element. It is regrettable that they should be left with this feeling of injustice for the rest of their lives.
The matter might easily have been settled in 1948. How it passed in 1948, or how it was that their representatives did not draw attention to that injustice, I do not know. Some of those people have less pensions now, because of the fact that they have got no increase, than some of those whose pensions have gone up as a result of the 1948 Act, and of the measure which the Minister is now putting through.
After the 1948 Act was passed, I went with a deputation to the Minister for Local Government and pointed out to him the injustice which the operation of that Act was inflicting on those people. There was reason to believe that an opportunity might be taken to make an adjustment whenever it arose in connection with those officials. They were caught under the terms of the 1948 Act because they were deliberately excluded, and, as far as I know, no reason was given for that. Unfortunately, they are caught under this Bill again because there is a ceiling. The Minister gave the reasons for that in his Second Reading speech.
As previous speakers have pointed out, this small number of pensioners will have their pensions met by the local authorities out of the local rates. In that way, any increase given to them would not fall on the National Exchequer. I suggest to the Minister that it would be very greatly appreciated by Deputies who have raised the question of these pensioners if it were possible for him, in some way, to direct the local authorities to right the wrong which was done under the 1948 Act.
I should like to join with previous speakers in the appeal they have made to the Minister. Deputy Cowan told us that the House is in the hands of the Minister, but, surely, in a matter which concerns justice and equity, the House is not going to allow itself to be in the hands of any Minister. If the Minister is wrong it is the duty of the House to correct the injustice that has been done. I rather think that the Minister is in the hands of the House. In relation to the case which has been put to the Minister on behalf of those who retired before 1940, and who are not covered by the Superannuation Act of 1928, it seems to me that the Minister has not dealt fairly with them.
I think the Minister said last week that those who retired in 1929 engaged in alternative employment. I have not the Official Report with me, but if I am wrong in that I should like the Minister to correct me. But from inquiries made it is quite clear that only 11 or 12 of these obtained alternative employment. The numbers who retired, and who benefited by the conditions which prevailed at that time, were, I understand, over 600, and the number of people who are now excluded from benefits to which they are entitled is, I think, 160.
Surely the Minister should rectify this wrong. I support the suggestions which have been made by Deputy Cowan on the grounds of injustice and by Deputy Byrne on the grounds of economics, because a great many of the disabilities under which these pensioners suffer can be laid against the Department over which the Minister presides. No matter what the Minister says, or what any of the officials who advise him say, the commodities which these pensioners have to buy in the year 1949 are at least 100 per cent. dearer than they were in 1929. These are the things which concern the pensioners who retired in 1929.
The Minister is advised by his Department, but we have been listening to replies given by Ministers to questions put in the House and we know perfectly well that this advice which is given at a desk is by no means a realistic summary of the actual position which faces the people. Like all other Ministers, I am afraid the Minister for Finance has become a slave to his advisers. That seems to be a kind of epidemic which gets a hold of persons when they attain Ministerial office. If we are to judge from the statements of the present Minister when he was in opposition, we can only conclude that he has changed his views since he became Minister for Finance.
I appeal to him to do justice to those people. Nobody can do anything but appreciate the change of front on the part of any Minister who, when a case has been put to him, a case based on justice and equity, changes his mind. I appeal to the Minister to remedy the disabilities under which those people suffer.
With regard to those pensioners whose pension is over £450, I think they, too, suffer from a grave injustice. These men or women who were on rather big salaries, as the times went, and who lived at the rate of £1,000 a year, are now forced to live on £650 or £750 a year under conditions which are much more exacting than those which existed when they were serving the State nobly and well. I suggest the Minister should also change his mind in regard to those people. It is not easy, under normal circumstances, for a man who has been accustomed to live at the rate of £1,000 a year, to live on £500 or £600, but it is much more difficult for him to have to do so under the changed economic conditions. Inflation is rampant, and when the Minister takes no step to prevent that inflation, he is bound in all fairness to make provision for those people for whom I join with other Deputies in appealing for justice and equity.
I have listened to the speeches delivered by various Deputies in support of this small section of pensioners, but I must confess I cannot subscribe to all that has been said on behalf of them. Some ceiling had to be fixed and what occurs to me is that if this Bill had not been introduced, these people would have been quite satisfied with their pensions as fixed at £450. I may be wrong and I may be right, but I feel I must consider the position of the people of the country as a whole. Arguments have been advanced by Deputies here with regard to the hardships suffered by people accustomed to live on an income of £1,000 a year and who suddenly found themselves, when retiring, having to live on £400 or £500. Whilst I never was an advocate of class distinction, I would like to remind these Deputies that I have in mind thousands of working men who had £7 a week and who, when they reached 65 years, had to retire without any pension and are now living on the dole. Those are the thoughts that occur to me.
I do not want to be taken as one who advocates class distinction in any shape or form. The Minister has to consider the people as a whole, and I do not subscribe to the theory that any official who is in the enjoyment of £1,000 a year must have the same standard of living until he goes to the grave. I cannot subscribe to the theory that a man who is in the enjoyment of £1,000 a year has not put something away for the rainy day. These people must have something and, therefore, it does not follow that they are enduring any great hardships. Four hundred and fifty pounds a year means between £8 and £9 a week. Being a realist, and as one who mixes with the people and who realises their position, I say that a man with £8 or £9 a week cannot be suffering from the hardships that were outlined here this evening.
Arguments have been raised with respect to the cost of living and a comparison has been made between the cost of living when these men retired and the cost of living to-day. I do not think there is any great difference between the cost of living when these men retired and the cost that appertains to-day. My view is that in the present circumstances, with the resources at his disposal, the Minister for Finance has to consider the position of the people as a whole. Whilst the passing of certain legislation may be a hardship on certain sections, at least these people must realise that in the ultimate the Minister is following a policy which he believes is in the best interests of the people.
I am a firm believer in the policy that if there are hardships to be endured they should be spread over as many shoulders as possible. No section of our people should be put on a pedestal at the expense of the majority. I am one of those who would like to see every man with £1,000 a year, or even £10,000 a year, but I strongly hold the view that I must consider the position of the tens of thousands of our people who have to live on very much less. The argument has been put forward that these people are only nine or ten in number. They could be 9,000 and the same argument could be put up. It is not a question of the number but of the principle involved, and some ceiling would have to be set up.
I do not care three straws what Minister is in power, he must have consideration for (1) the resources of the country and (2) the capacity of the people to put up the moneys necessary to pay any increase that may be asked for by various Deputies and sanctioned by the House.
As far as that is concerned, I am not against this minority of officials who have retired and who, possibly through hard luck or otherwise, do not come under this Bill. I do not think that is an argument that can hold water. It is just their fortune, good or bad, as the case may be. It could happen the other way about. I think the time has come when Deputies must recognise the position of the country with a population of only 3,000,000 people and limited resources at its disposal. There must be some ceiling, not only in relation to pensions but also in relation to national taxation.
I support the general case put forward. I would be deeply interested to ascertain from the Minister how he came to fix a ceiling of £450 above which no provision can be made under the terms of this particular measure. I have a copy of the document from which Deputy Cowan read. In one portion of that document there appears the name of an official of the Dublin Corporation who retired in 1931 on a pension of £306 2s. 7d. That particular official has now an important position outside the State at a salary of £2,000 per year. Under the 1948 Act he was lucky enough to have his pension increased from £306 2s. 7d. to £499 15s. 3d. This Bill by fixing the ceiling at £450 prevents a small number receiving any increases. I know one individual who is in receipt of a pension of £481 from the Dublin Corporation to whom no increase can be given under the Bill as it now stands. Why fix the ceiling at £450? Why not make it £500 or £600? I appeal to the Minister to raise the ceiling to a figure that will enable people who received no benefit under the 1948 Act to get something under this measure.
I put this before the House as being something definitely in the hands of the House. I find it difficult to adjust myself to change according to the changing moods of the House in recent months. When I was in opposition I spoke on behalf of pensioners. I do not withdraw anything I said in those days. Probably it was the knowledge of what was said from the Opposition Benches then that led those people now supporting the Government to urge that some increase should be made to certain pensioners or some adjustment in regard to the moneys they receive so that they would bear a better relation to the present reduced value of money. That was urged early in 1948. Pressure was again put on in the early months of this year. But in those days all the pressure was with regard to the people on the low pensions and I very definitely took my lead from the House. I felt the sympathy of the House lay more particularly with the people on the lower pensions and was more justly applicable to them. Consequently, when we came to arrange some scheme of readjustment, instead of doing what would have been the simplest thing and merely taking a new pension related to a new cost-of-living figure and applying that right down the line, we appreciated that that would not be of very much benefit to those in receipt of very low pensions. Therefore, we gave a very decided increase—an increase that has not been bettered in any increased pension legislation anywhere. It was a distinct improvement, a better improvement than has been made elsewhere, in regard to the people on the lower levels. There was a considerable sum of money involved—a sum approaching £40,000,000 a year—and somebody had to suffer. I think the case can be made, as has been made here, that those above the £450 mark are penalised. If they are, it is for the benefit of the lower-graded people.
If I was to take the mood in which I find the House now and decide to remove any ceiling and not to care whether people had £450 or £480, then I would have to think out a new scheme. I would have a different scheme and that scheme would give those on £450, and over, something, but it would correspondingly reduce the people on the lower levels. That figure of £450 appears in legislation on the other side. As I said on the Second Reading, they made two efforts in England to increase pensions. In their first effort they had a lower ceiling than £450. For the time being, I am leaving civil servants out of the picture. Then they raised the ceiling and the highest point they have reached so far is the £450 mark; that, I may say, is for married people or single people with certain dependents. We took the ceiling of £450 as representing a proper figure. In England, as I mentioned before, they have a means test. That might not work to the disadvantage of people here because the probability is that folk with a pension over £450 are living on those pensions. Therefore, the application of a means test to them would not make any great difference. That was the way they balanced things in England.
We decided to take a figure of £450 and apply it all round without any advertence to any other means a person might have. I have a good deal of sympathy with those who are outside the scope of these increases. Deputies have talked about "nine" people. That figure relates only to local authority pensioners over the £450 mark. It would be quite wrong, of course, to give local authority pensioners a better scale and better conditions than those given to the police and civil servants. If I were to take the standard proposed in Deputy Cowan's amendment, if that appeals to the mood of the House, I would have to readjust the entire pension legislation. I would not tie myself to £220,000 or £250,000 or something approximating to that. I do not know that in the end we would not have the same grumbling that we have now attaching to a completely different group of people.
Deputy Cowan proposes three changes. First of all, he would associate all pensions with a cost-of-living figure of 270; secondly, he would make retrospective payments back to 1946; and, thirdly, he would have no ceiling. If I took these three amendments and applied them to everybody, it would involve a considerable addition to the proposed expenditure. As I have arranged the scheme with civil servants and others, I think it is only equitable that local authority pensioners should be on the same footing. The phrase was used in this House that local authority pensioners are being victimised. They are not. They are as well-off to day as are civil servants and members of the Garda. In fact, they have had something in their favour in the years gone by because some of them have pensions paid by reference to a cost-of-living figure of 270 as from 1st November, 1946. Teachers have had no increase up to this moment and civil servants have been limited to the cost-of-living figure current at the date of their retirement. Although there is some justification in the argument that it is not indifferent justice to them all, it is at least equal justice to teachers, Gardaí, civil servants, on the one hand, and local authority pensioners on the other. I would ask the House to take it as the best that can be offered in present circumstances. Deputy Dr. Brennan raised a different point with regard to Article X pensioners.
I referred to 1929. It is not the same.
The people to whom I refer are people with other employment. I refer to those people who went out comparatively young in years of service. I refer to people with years of work in them, people who had the advantage of the big pension and who were in a position to take up other work—and a lot of them did. In respect of those people, I am unrepentant. The Article X people do not deserve any sympathy in this House. They went out either as people who objected to a change of Government and, if they did, they got very good conditions, or——
I did not say so to-day. What about the 1929 pensioners, apart altogether from the Article X people?
Some went out in those years; others went out later.
What about the local authority cases?
Those cases are being given the same conditions as the civil servants and the Gardaí and teachers. It is the best I can do in the circumstances, with the limited amount of money I have. I do not propose to increase it. I cannot see the case that has been made here for the people with £450 and over. I said on the Second Reading that they have a bit more slack to gather in than the other people.
Under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948, a small number of people were omitted. I do not know why, because I was not here at the time. Increases in pensions were granted to all sections with the exception of one section, namely, those who retired before the 1st July, 1940, on fixed pensions: that is a small body. Would the Minister consider putting them in the position, under this Bill, in which they should have been put under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948? If the Minister could ease that injustice he would be going a long way towards meeting the case.
I should like to emphasise that particular point also. As a matter of fact, that was the point which brought me to my feet in connection with this particular Bill. The Minister, in his reply, did not deal specifically with that point of view. He said that employees of local authorities should have no reasonable grounds for complaint if they were dealt with on the same basis. I think that is quite acceptable and that the House would accept that all right, that is, if everything were normal. However, up to the introduction of this Bill, things have not been normal for that particular small section referred to.
In that Act of 1948, a small number —and it is easily distinguishable here in respect of the Dublin Corporation and of the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council—for reasons that none of us can understand, was excluded by the previous Minister for Finance. If they were normally included at that time with the other three categories there would be no grievance this afternoon in respect of the Minister's measure. Can the Minister for Finance suggest any way whereby that small number can be dealt with in the way I believe the local authorities would like to deal with them if they had permission? There is the snag, the backwash of the 1948 Act, for that small number of persons.
The principle at the back of this particular piece of legislation is that I take people who were in receipt of certain pensions; I look at the pensions and make a calculation that the pension is not worth anything like what it was at the time these people first were awarded them. I am trying to readjust in relation to that. I am not setting out to correct all sorts of injustices that either were or may have been done.
Deputy O'Sullivan refers to local authority people. Deputy Palmer put to me very vigorously the case of a group of women teachers who were, he said, forced out at a certain age when they were, on practice, entitled to go on for a longer period. There are all sorts of anomalies, here, there and everywhere. It would be an impossible task to correct all injustices done with regard to the allocation or distribution or termination of pensions in regard to certain people. I take pensions as they are and give certain increases. That is the best I can do.
The Minister will not deny, I am sure, that those who retired previous to 1929 did so at a cost-of-living figure of 320 and that those who retired in 1929 retired on a cost-of-living figure varying between 150 and 180. Therefore, these people are surely under some disadvantage. It may be argued by the Minister that some retired under Article X. I do not take that case at all. Not all of them retired under that Article. I think, in fact, that only a very small number of them did so at the time. I am sorry to hear the Minister say that he is not out to correct an injustice. I think he should do so, where injustices exist. I think that it is his duty to correct any injustice under this Bill.
As Deputy M. O'Sullivan has said, there are only a few cases in respect of local authorities which have to be dealt with. I must say that I am rather disappointed by the attitude taken up by the Minister.
In regard to this small number of people who should have been brought within the 1948 Act, but who were not, for some reason not understood by any Deputy in the House, would the Minister undertake to consider their particular case? I realise that, as far as this Bill is concerned—being a general increase of pensions Bill—it probably would not be the proper Bill in which to rectify this particular grievance. Will the Minister undertake to consider that grievance that has been put to him this afternoon?
Certainly.
Question agreed to.
Sections 7 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I formally move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (4), line 20, after the word "revoked" to add the words "and such revocation shall be deemed to have effect as from the 1st day of November, 1946".
Is amendment No. 3 withdrawn?
No.
Amendment put and negatived.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
I am anxious to raise the case of widows of members of the Garda Síochána, and I feel that I can raise it under the Schedule, particularly under paragraph (d). As I understand it, the widow of a non-commissioned officer enjoys or endures a pension of £30. I think that anyone will agree that that pension is abnormally low, and even if an increase is granted under the terms of this Bill, it will still be abnormally low. I should like the Minister to give a special consideration to that particular class. I have in mind for example the case of a sergeant of the Gardaí who died on duty and left a young family. His widow, who was in the position of having enjoyed an income sufficient to maintain that family on a fairly reasonable standard, now finds herself trying to maintain that position on an absolutely inadequate pension. I think there is need for special consideration for cases of that particular type. We have also the cases of the widows of members of the commissioned ranks. I think the pension of the widow of a commissioned officer is only £50. Everyone will realise that a commissioned officer has been enjoying a fairly substantial income and has had to maintain a certain standard of living. When that man dies it is an extraordinary injustice upon his widow and family to expect that they should live on £50.
Reference has been made to the case of people with pensions of over £450 and a special plea has been made for them. We have also heard of the case of a person who enjoyed, while employed, over £1,000 a year, and who now finds himself, on retirement, reduced to an income of £500 a year. Is there not a much greater injustice in the case of a man who dies young, if his family are left almost destitute? One instance that has been brought to my notice is that of the first Deputy-Commissioner of the Civic Guards, a man who was in a great measure responsible for building up that force. I understand his widow has a pension of only £50 a year. I think that some special consideration should be given to that case. It is a terrible injustice, in my opinion, that the widow of a man who took such a prominent part in building up the State should be left with such a miserable pittance.
There are Deputies who may say that, in the case of a commissioned officer or even a non-commissioned member of the Garda, these people, as prudent and good citizens, should have made provision for their families by way of insurance with some commercial insurance firm. I understand that, in the case I have mentioned, the man had actually his life insured but the insurance company availed of some frivolous quibble in order to avoid making any payment on the policy. I am sure the Minister himself sympathises with the particular types of case I have mentioned and I would urge him to do something in the matter because I am sure he will realise the injustice, not only to widows of members of the non-commissioned ranks but also to widows of members of the commissioned ranks, occasioned by the present miserable allowances. I would ask him specially to consider the children of those particular members of the force, and if he cannot do anything for their widows, I would urge that, at least, he should make some provision for the children until they are able to fend for themselves.
I support very strongly the appeal made by Deputy Cogan. I would particularly appeal to the Minister, if he cannot for administrative reasons amend the Bill or the Order which he intends to make——
May I intervene to point out that widows will get the appropriate increase.
I know that. I have personal knowledge of at least three cases in addition to that to which Deputy Cogan refers. I think it is a terrible scandal that in these days the widow and orphans of a man who served the State very well as a commissioned officer should be asked to subsist on a maximum pension of £50 a year. The same remarks apply to the widows of non-commissioned officers who have to exist on even a smaller pension. There should be some reasonable minimum pension, if you like to call it a pension or if it is entitled to be described as such, in the case of non-commissioned officers who have served the State faithfully over long periods. Apart from the case to which Deputy Cogan referred and of which many of us including the Minister are aware, I know the case of one commissioned officer. I was surprised to discover that when he passed out by the will of God he left a widow and two young children in rather straitened circumstances. The two children are now living outside the State and I do not know how the widow has been living for some time. It is a disgrace that the State should prescribe a sum of £50 a year as a suitable pension for a widow who finds herself in such circumstances. I would appeal to the Minister—I know the Minister has as much sympathy as anybody else with these cases—that if he cannot do anything under the terms of the Bill, he should look into the whole question at an early date with a view to providing pensions which will afford a reasonable standard of living for widows and families of commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the Garda.
I should like to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of certain ex-officers of mental hospitals who had only about 25/- or 35/- a month under the old régime. While we are giving them a 50 per cent. increase, it will mean very little to these people. I think that £1 a week should be the absolute minimum and 50 per cent. will not bring them even up to £1 per week. If the Minister could do something to enable a small number, at least, to receive £1 a week minimum for the rest of their lives, it would be much appreciated by those people. Some figures given to me show that 50 per cent. works out at £1 15s. 10d. per month in some cases; in other cases, £1 10s.; in another, £1 7s. 11d.; and another £1 4s. 11d. These are people who are very old now, but who retired on a miserable pension, and 50 per cent. increase would not mean anything to them. If the Minister could rectify the position, to enable them to get £1 a week minimum, it would not be looked upon as extravagant.
I have heard this instance given by Deputy Davin and, judging by what Deputy Cogan and others have said, it is quite obvious that this question deserves the serious attention of the Minister. From what he has stated previously, I can imagine that he would not be inclined to rectify exceptional cases of injustice, but in part of this area for which I happen to be one of the Deputies, I know of three cases, two of which have been referred to by Deputy Davin. It is rather scandalous that a man who has given the best years of his life in the service of his country should, when he dies, leave a widow and children to the mercy of the poor law authority.
One of the cases to which Deputy Davin referred is that of a superintendent of the Gárda. He died in the last 20 years and left two children and his widow received the sum of £50 or £52 a year. All his life that man was contributing to a widows' and orphans' pension, but all his widow received was this trivial sum.
There is another case of a man who married a second time the year after his first wife died. He had four or five small children. Having retired, he died, leaving the widow with four young children and she received a gratuity, the sum of £50. All his life that man had been contributing something towards the insurance of his wife and children, but, because of the circumstances in which the second wife found herself, with the responsibility of bringing up the first wife's children, she got the magnificent sum of £50. Had the first wife lived, she would then have been entitled to a pension of £36 a year. I think the Minister should consider seriously, not embodying in this Bill but at least making some provision for dealing with instances of that kind.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the remaining Stages now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Would the Minister give us any encouragement or promise that he would look after the cases to which I referred? These men and girls left mental hospitals years ago, after having to work 90 hours a week, and now find that a 50 per cent. increase will mean for some of them only £1 15s. 10d. a month, or £1 10s., £1 7s. 11d. or £1 4s. 11d. I do not think anything should stand in the way of doing justice to those people for the remainder of their lives.
Would the Deputy give me those particulars? That point would mean a readjustment of the pensions code and that is not what I am dealing with here at the moment. I am only increasing the pensions by a certain sum. I have not particulars of the mental authorities' cases, but if the Deputy lets me have them I will get the matter considered.
Is it possible for the Minister to do anything in the matter?
Not on this. What the Deputy is asking is, I think, an amendment of the pensions code under which people get pensions. I do not know that that is my particular function. I am dealing only with this limited matter. If the Deputy lets me have those particulars, which appear to be startling figures, I will get them considered by the proper Minister.
Question put and agreed to.