Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Nov 1952

Vol. 134 No. 8

Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1952.

I move:—

That the Dáil hereby approves of the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1952, made on the 29th day of July, 1952, by the Minister for Justice, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, under Section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, and laid before the Dáil on the 1st October, 1952.

The Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1952, which I am asking the House to approve, contains amendments of the 1951 Pensions Order and also a provision to enable the pensions of certain members who retired prior to 1st January, 1952, to be re-assessed. A memorandum, explaining the provisions of the Order, has been circulated to Deputies. The details are as follows:—

Article 4 (a) of the Order amends Article 9 of the 1951 Pensions Order. When the latter Order was framed provision was made under Article 8 (b) for the payment of extra gratuities, calculated at the rate of 1/2 of 1 per cent. of annual pay for each year of service prior to 29th December, 1951, to members of the force who retire and receive ordinary pensions. Provision was not made for the payment of this extra gratuity to members of the force who might be awarded special pensions on retirement by reason of injuries sustained in the course of their duty. Provision is now being made for the payment of the extra gratuity to such members.

Article 4 (b) of the Order amends Article 13 of the 1951 Pensions Order. The latter Order provided that, if a member of the force to whom a retirement gratuity had been paid served again, the amount of any retirement gratuity to which he later became entitled would be reduced by the amount of the gratuity previously paid to him. No provision was, however, made in the case of a member who might die during his second period of service for the deduction of the gratuity previously paid from any death gratuity to which the deceased member's legal personal representatives might become entitled. This is now being done and is necessary to prevent the payment of a gratuity twice in respect of the same period of service in the force.

Article 5. The Garda Síochána Pensions Act, 1947, permitted members of the force who retired from the force and who were allowed to rejoin to count the period they were absent from the force as approved service for pension purposes, provided that a certificate was issued under Section 8 of the Act that their retirement had been due solely to political reasons. They were not, however, permitted to receive increments of pay in respect of the periods they were absent. Provision is now being made to re-assess the pensions of any such members who may have retired before the 1st January, 1952, as though their annual pay, on retirement, had included increments of pay in respect of the periods they were absent from the force.

The general effect of the Order is to make improvements in the Garda Síochána Pensions code and no further comments are, I think, necessary.

Am I to understand that there is no mention of the pre-1950 pensioners?

Mr. Boland

This is merely to amend the 1951 Pensions Order in respect of the matters I have mentioned. It is confined to that.

Does this exclude the pre-1950 pensioners?

Mr. Boland

That does not arise on this. It does not include them and does not refer to them at all.

It is on the face of the memorandum circulated.

Mr. Boland

It is an amendment of the 1951 Pensions Order.

Is there not a real grievance felt by the pre-1950 pensioners as they are getting no increase?

Mr. Boland

They may feel they have a grievance. What I am doing is rectifying omissions in the 1951 Pensions Order. Everybody will have a grievance as long as we live.

These men have been in the force during a very difficult period and it is most unfair to cut them out of any increase under this Order. Is it not possible for the Minister to reconsider their case?

Mr. Boland

Not under this. This is purely confined to the amendment of the 1951 Pensions Order.

Could you not have included them, too, when you were amending it?

Is the Minister also satisfied that the widows of those Guards should be getting only 17/3 pension? Will they get no consideration under this Order?

Mr. Boland

That may be so, but it will be another day's work if it is to be tackled at all. It does not arise under this Order.

I am not anxious to closure the Deputy but it does not arise under this Order. I allowed him to ask the question.

If I may inquire for our guidance, under the existing Pensions Order introduced by the Minister, may we not at this stage advocate the addition of certain other matters calling for amendment in the code, the making of this Order giving us an opportunity of making those necessary amendments? At this stage we may suggest to the Minister that he should further amend the code and that the Order is defective in that it overlooks certain things that require amendment.

I think I allowed Deputy Hickey to say that.

I am appealing to the Minister to refer it back for further consideration.

Mr. Boland

This Order?

Yes, and to include those people I mentioned. Those Guards have been in the people's service during a very difficult period and it is not fair to exclude them from this Order. I referred also to the widows who have only 17/3 a week and if the Minister considers the purchasing power of 17/3 and spreads it over seven days of the week, he will not think it unreasonable to ask that the matter be referred back and that those people be included in his Order.

Mr. Boland

I could refer this matter back but the only result would be to defer ratification of the improvement of the 1951 Pensions Order. I do not hold out any hope of an improvement in the 1950 pensions but if there is any it can be done by another Order of this kind. There is nothing to be gained by asking me to withdraw this Order to amend it. It has already gone through the Seanad in this form and if it is not passed the only effect will be to postpone the improvement that has been proposed here.

I am not asking the Minister to delay anything, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask him to reconsider the matter and to include the people to whom I am referring. We have an obligation to those Guards who retired prior to 1950 and who have been in the service of this country during a very difficult time, and to their widows who are getting only 17/3 a week at the present time. Anyone who divides 17/3 by seven can find out what they have to live on for the seven days of the week. I appeal to the Minister to give these people the consideration they deserve.

I would ask if this Order applies to Guards who were too old at the time they joined to be able to serve the full period and who were forced to retire before whatever period of years would enable them to enjoy the fullest pension. Does this Order apply to them and rectify their position? It is a considerable grievance up and down the country among Guards who managed to get only about 20 years' service instead of the requisite 30 years. Therefore, they are eligible for only two-thirds pension facility.

Mr. Boland

This amends Article 9 of the 1951 Order. In the case of Guards, maybe the Deputy is not aware, after they have served 20 years they are allowed to count every year after that as a double year for pension purposes. Is he aware of that?

I am aware of that; still that does not bring them up.

Mr. Boland

There is no extra provision made.

Would the Minister consider making provision? They are not getting the full pension.

Mr. Boland

I know that, but it does not arise here.

Question put and declared carried, Deputy Hickey dissenting.
Top
Share