Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 31 Jul 1953

Vol. 141 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1953—Motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

That the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1953, prepared by the Minister for Defence, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, under the terms of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts, 1932 to 1949, and laid before the House on 28th July, 1953, be confirmed.

The Defence Forces (Pensions) schemes relate to the retired pay and pensions of members of the Permanent Force, the Chaplaincy Service and the Army Nursing Service, and to the pensions of the widows and children of officers. The main purpose of the present scheme is to increase the retired pay and pensions of members of the Permanent Force retired or discharged after the service pay increases of the 1st September, 1949 and the 15th January, 1951 came into operation. Officers and soldiers who, before leaving the Permanent Force, were eligible for the increased rates of pay are entitled to have the increases reflected to an appropriate extent in their retired pay and service pensions, and the scheme now before the House provides for that. There is, of course, a number of other provisions in the scheme. Some of these arise from the fact that the old system of regimental pay plus allowances such as lodging, fuel and light allowances and ration allowances came to an end as from the 1st April, 1950, and the officers now receive consolidated rates of pay which embody the former allowances. The provisionsto which I have referred are necessary, therefore, to bring the schemes into line with the new system. There are certain other provisions which are selfexplanatory or which are sufficiently explained in the memorandum which accompanied the scheme. I think, therefore, that I may confine my remarks to the increases proposed in retired pay and pensions following the September, 1949 and January, 1951 increases in service pay.

I shall deal first with Article 4 of the scheme which provides for increases in retired pay granted under Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9A and 10 of the principal scheme. Each of these articles of the principal scheme provides for the computation of retired pay by relation to the particular circumstances of an officer's case—the length of his service, whether he is retiring on age grounds or on medical grounds and so on. By Article 14 of the amending scheme of 1947, retired pay calculated in accordance with the articles I have mentioned was increased by 30 per cent. In the present Article 4, new percentages are being prescribed by which the original rates laid down in the principal scheme of 1937 are to be increased as a result of the pay increases of September, 1949, and January, 1951. Thus, officers eligible for these new increases on the original rates of retired pay will receive them in lieu of the 30 per cent. increase provided for in the 1947 scheme.

I may mention that married officers will benefit very substantially under this article. Hitherto, married officers and single officers of the same rank and service received the same rate of retired pay, married officers being eligible, in addition, for a gratuity. As a result of consolidation, married officers now receive higher rates of pay than single officers and, following upon this position, married officers to whom the present scheme applies will receive higher percentage increases on the original rates of retired pay than will single officers.

Article 5 provides for increases in the gratuities payable to married officers eligible for retired pay, thepercentage increases on the original rates being the same as those set out in Article 4. Hitherto, widower officers without children under the prescribed ages were treated in the same way as single officers and did not qualify for married officers' gratuities. All widower officers to whom the present scheme applies will, however, be treated as married officers for gratuity purposes.

Article 20 of the principal scheme provided for pensions for the widows and children of deceased officers. The original pensions for widows, which ranged from £45 a year in the case of the widow of a lieutenant to £100 a year in the case of a widow of a major-general or officer of higher rank, were increased by 50 per cent. in 1949. The pensions for children—£15 a year for a child whose mother is alive and £22 a year where the mother is dead—were not increased, and it is now proposed, by Article 14 of the present scheme, to increase these children's pensions also by 50 per cent.

The existing rates of pension for soldiers with 21 years' service range from 15/9 a week in the case of privates to 29/9 in the case of a sergeant-major. This pension may be increased by 1/- a week for each year of service exceeding 21 and up to 31. In the case of married men, an additional pension of 7/- a week is payable.

Following on the pay increases, it is proposed by Article 17 of this scheme to increase the service pensions, in the case of men discharged on or after the 1st September, 1949, and before the 15th January, 1951, by a flat 1/9 a week and the married pension from 7/- to 7/9 a week. In the case of soldiers discharged on or after the 15th January, 1951, further increases in the service pension, ranging from 2/- a week in the case of privates to 5/- a week in the case of sergeant-majors are proposed, and the married pension will be further increased from 7/9 a week to 8/9 a week.

Article 19 provides for increases in the short service gratuities payable to soldiers whose service does not qualify them for pension. The rates set out in Table I will apply to soldiers discharged on or after the 1st September,1949, and before the 15th January, 1951. Those set out in Table II will apply to soldiers discharged on or after the 15th January, 1951. For comparison purposes, I may mention that the rates shown in column (3) of Table I exceed the existing rates in each case by 5/- and that those in columns (4) and (5) exceed the existing ones by 10/- in each case.

I have already referred to the gratuities payable to married officers on retirement in addition to their retired pay. These are payable on the basis of an appropriate sum for each year of service according to retiring rank, up to a maximum of 20 years, and the appropriate sum at present prescribed for officers of the rank of major-general and upwards is £40 a year. That amount, is of course, increasable by the percentages set out in Article 5, Article 25 now prescribes specific appropriate sums for lieutenant-generals and generals retiring after this scheme comes into force. The appropriate sums of £80 and £90 a year take account of the percentage increases to which I referred.

I think I have now covered all the articles on which it is necessary for me to comment specifically. I should mention, however, that a further scheme will be necessary to increase retired pay and pensions for members of the permanent force who, before retirement or discharge, were eligible for the pay increases recently introduced with effect from the 1st April, 1953. I hope to have this scheme ready at the commencement of the next session.

The production of the scheme was unavoidably delayed owing to the work involved in the production of the Army Pensions Bill, and I am anxious that the former officers and men affected, who have already had to wait a long time for these increases, should not be deprived of them for a further four months while the Dáil might be in recess.

Mr. S. Collins

We find ourselves of necessity in a difficulty where this pensions scheme is concerned. Like the Minister, we are more than anxious that any benefits to flow to officers,some of whom have waited a considerable period for these benefits, should not be delayed. In so far as this pensions scheme is going to benefit that section of the community, we have no intention of delaying its passage in this House. But this is the only opportunity we get of making a protest that it is very necessary to make. The parliamentary device with regard to this Order is that we either pass the Order or refuse to pass it. In those circumstances, we cannot make any move to improve or amend the scheme.

Lest misrepresentations might flow from the observations I made in the course of the discussion on the Order of Business here, I want it to be quite clear that at no stage did we in the Fine Gael Party desire that the benefits that are within this scheme should be withheld from the sections that are going to benefit. However, we take this opportunity of registering a significant protest, first of all, against the complete scheme and the complete basis of the scheme. I know that the Minister has his difficulties. I know that it will ultimately be the duty of some Government to face the reality of the problem in connection with Army pensions and that there will have to be a general raising of the level and a change of the whole basis of the calculations that are going to be made for pension purposes. I do not think that is going to be done now but I think it serves a useful purpose to register the type of protest we must register in this House, first of all against the whole conception of the scheme of pensions. It is archaic and ill-conceived.

If this scheme is going to confer improved emoluments on the section of people who left the Army since 1951, we say it is more than welcome. The relief now being given is long overdue, and the Minister does deserve commendation to the extent that he brought this matter into the forum of the House for passing before the long recess takes place, thus enabling people who have entered into commitments on foot of this expectation or who may be anticipating having a holiday on foot of the expectation of these pensions to get the benefit of them during this recess period.

There is one unfortunate feature in relation to this whole pensions scheme to which I must specifically advert, that is the number of people who gave their full service to the National Army and who for reasons best known to the then Government were encouraged and virtually induced, having completed their full period of service, to leave the Army. Maybe it was the picture that was painted of prospects in civilian life that were not ultimately to materialise, but the fact remains that the Minister in answer to a question I asked yesterday indicated that 187 officers and 800 N.C.O.s and men retired having given full service in the Army, and they are excluded from the benefits that flow to other sections of the Army by virtue of the present pensions scheme.

My feeling is apparent to all in this House where the National Army is concerned. The time has come to show our pride in our own Army in effective consideration of their emoluments and pensions schemes in this House. It is for that reason I say to the Minister that it is indeed regrettable that when designing this scheme it was not possible to do something for that section.

There is another peculiar section of retired personnel in the Army on whose behalf I want to make a plea too. Even though we find ourselves in the position that we will not be able to amend this scheme, there is another scheme in contemplation and there will ultimately have to be at Government level a full investigation of the general basis of Army pensions schemes.

In that situation, I would impress on the Minister that he should not forgo from his consideration the very limited band of officers who served for a number of years in the Army, went on the Reserve and then served the whole period of the Emergency in the Army. There are some of these people who are getting on now and for whom some limited provision by way of an amended pensions scheme might properly be forthcoming.

I want to say that it does not afford me any pleasure to have to make thistype of protest on this scheme because I am conscious that the Minister himself, the present occupant of the office, anyway, has a good deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by those of us who take a keen personal interest in the armed forces. I do feel, however, that I would not be serving my function in this House if I did not take this opportunity of registering this type of protest. We are in the cleft stick situation that the design of the parliamentary method of approval of this Order leaves us in the position that to oppose this Order would deny benefits that will flow from the Order to certain people. I do not think any of us genuinely in sympathy with the case for improvements in the Army pensions scheme would do that. I certainly would not, but one is still left in the position that one has to say "Tá" to this pensions scheme going through, when one knows, in fact, that it is a type of pensions scheme that is creating another source of grievance and complaint. Therefore, I make my protest, but I make it, as the Minister will appreciate, for the purpose of the records of the discussion and for the purpose of keeping a way open for some future consideration by some future Government of the cases now specifically referred to.

I want to say in general, not in any sense of acrimony, that the basis for the floor and the ceiling of these pensions is completely wrong. It is pathetic to think of the differentiation between the pension payable to, we shall say, a retired officer of fairly senior rank while he is alive and the drastic fall that occurs in the pension payable to his widow and young children if he meets with an untimely death. As a matter of interest to Deputies who may not have heard the reply to a question asked by me yesterday, I might repeat the information given to me in respect to the case of a colonel who dies. Some of these colonels, as Deputies are aware, may have married late in life and they may have young families at present. We look upon a colonel as one of the king pins of our Army, his earning capacity being somewhere around £1,200 to £1,300 a year, but the pension available for his widow is £135 with £15 for each child. In thecase I put before the Minister the total payable was £180. In the case of a lieutenant-colonel the maximum would be £157, in the case of a commandant £142 and in the case of a captain £127.

I am not adverting to this in any spirit of criticism of the Minister; I am adverting to it rather in the spirit of criticism of the system on which Army pensions are basically designed. Having made that protest even though there are many technicalities and many matters to which one might refer, I think the better way, until we have some other opportunity of discussing the various facets of the pension scheme, is to agree to the scheme going through rather than delay any benefits that may accrue to people who I know are anxiously and eagerly awaiting even the limited benefits that flow from this scheme. I do not propose to say anything further at this stage.

Captain Cowan

I am glad that the scheme before us makes provision for an increase in the classes covered by this scheme. I regret that the machinery under which this scheme is brought in gives no opportunity to the Dáil to amend the scheme. When the Defence Forces Pension Bill was passed, it provided that pensions would be introduced by means of a scheme such as this, that the scheme would be drawn up by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance, and that it became law when it was approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I always feel that that type of legislation is not satisfactory but, however, the fact is that it is in existence, that the Minister is operating it and it is that type of scheme that is before us now. I regret that the scheme makes no provision for an increase in the pensions of officers who retired prior to 1949. There are quite a number of what one might call border line cases, a very small class excluded from the provisions of this scheme.

No Deputy had an opportunity to consider the scheme until it was placed before the House as it is now by the Minister. It is good, however, to know that the Minister does propose to introduce a further amendingscheme in the autumn. I hope when he is preparing that amending scheme, he will take into account the representations that will be made to him on behalf of the particular classes who retired from the Army, officers and soldiers, so that some provision may be made in the scheme which he proposes to introduce in the autumn. I think the Minister was very wise to bring this scheme before the House now and have it approved rather than keep it until the autumn, when the other classes and other personnel that he has in mind will be covered. I think it is wise to deal with it in this particular fashion because it will give him an opportunity of seeing what can be done to improve the pension provisions for Army personnel who retired prior to 1949.

I was particularly interested in the section dealing with the Ordnance Survey. I have been in communication with the Minister and his Department over a number of years in regard to the personnel in the Ordnance Survey section. I understand it is the Minister's intention to deal with that particular class in the amendment which he will bring in in the autumn. I understand further that the delay will not, in fact, prejudice this personnel.

I am glad that the difficulties and the grievances which have existed for a number of years will now be removed and that the principle for which these people contended has been accepted. One can do nothing in a case such as this except welcome the scheme, be glad that the Minister has made provision for increases and express the hope that in the new scheme which he proposes to bring out in the autumn the classes not covered now will be provided for.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to endorse all that has been said in relation to this scheme. It is somewhat unsatisfactory but there are only two ways of dealing with this scheme—that is, either accepting it or rejecting it—and the nature of its submission precludes the possibility of proposing an amendment. This scheme was only circulated on Tuesday, with the result that it has not been possible to get particularsfrom those concerned as to how they are actually affected. However, the fact that the Minister has announced that an amending scheme will be introduced in the autumn will enable him, between now and the autumn, to rectify some of the deficiencies in the scheme at present before the House. I cannot understand how those officers and men who retired prior to 1949 were excluded from the first scheme and have been excluded from this scheme. Deputies who are familiar with their circumstances recognise that a great number of officers and men had completed full service at that time. In some cases, they had no option because they had reached the age limit. In other cases they either had the option of retiring at their existing ranks or accepting a lower rank. Those officers and men had given the best years of their lives to the service of the country and had formed, in many cases, the nucleus upon which the Army was founded. Most of them, if not all of them, had Old I.R.A. service and were obliged, having reached the age limit, to retire or to accept a reduction in rank. The Minister's figures yesterday show that there were 187 officers and over 800 men so affected. In most cases it was not possible for these persons to get civilian employment. It is difficult at that age to become sufficiently trained to fill any other appointment. While some of them were fortunate enough to be employed in either civilian occupations or in semi-State concerns, the vast majority were obliged to live on whatever pensions they were entitled to. The result is that those officers and men who had given loyal and faithful service to their country found themselves obliged to exist on a lower rate of pension than officers and men who retired subsequently.

It is often argued here that no matter what date one takes difficult cases will arise. Difficult cases probably confront the makers of any scheme of this kind, but the position in this case is that the officers and men who were in the Army from the beginning and who had completed service not only from 1922 to 1939 but also service during the emergency wereretired, and they have since been obliged to live on a lower rate of pension than those men who retired subsequently. I do not think anyone can seriously suggest that a person who has completed full service and who retires on age limit, or on any other of the statutory grounds, should be asked to accept a lower rate of pension than a person who subsequently serves for a further period and who, because of an alteration in the pensions scheme, is happily in a better position either because he did not reach the age of retirement before the new scheme or an amending scheme came into existence or because he is entitled to serve for a longer period by reason of promotion in rank.

When the Army was reduced after the emergency a number of officers because of the reduction in strength had to face the alternative of either retiring then or accepting a reduction in rank. Similarly, in the case of non-commissioned officers or men who had completed their period of service; they either had to enlist for a further protracted period under which they would be outside the age limit or retire under the age limit then in operation. I believe that the fact that almost 1,000 officers and men were so affected —over 187 officers and over 800 men— should impress the Minister and the House that it is not merely an accident that these persons were and are obliged to live at a lower rate of pension, and I hope that the serious injustice which has been done to these persons who served their country will be remedied when the amending scheme is introduced in the autumn.

In connection with this scheme it does appear to me that in the case of officers the two ranks that appear to come out worse are commandant and lieutenant and in the case of non-commissioned officers and men the private who has 21 years' service. They appear to have got only a small increase. I have here the case of a man who had 21 years' service and who was awarded a pension of £41 1s. 3d. and a married pension of 7/- per week. Under the amending scheme his pension will be increased by £11 17s. ayear to £52 2s. 10d. and the married pension from 7/- to 8/9.

I do not think anyone can suggest, in view of the substantial rise which there has been in the cost of living, that the increase proposed here is adequate to meet it. The fact that a man gets an increase of £11 1s. 7d. a year, plus 1/9 of a marriage pension, means that he is getting in or around 6/9 a week. No one will suggest that is an adequate increase. I would urge on the Minister that, when he is bringing forward the amending scheme in the autumn, he should take into account the substantial increase which there has been in the cost of living. While this scheme may be accepted as an interim measure, we must all hope that something better may be expected under the amending scheme.

I should also like to urge on the Minister the desirability of remedying the injustice which affects so many persons who retired prior to 1949. The bulk of them retired immediately after the emergency in 1946 or early in 1947. Some of them have been fortunate enough to get other employment, but a great number of them, because of the age at which they retired, have not been lucky enough to secure it. That being the case, the responsibility devolves on this House, on the Government and on the country to see that those who served the country in the Defence Forces, and who gave loyal and in many cases distinguished service should not be obliged to eke out a miserable existence. That is the position of many of them at the moment, due in many cases to the circumstances in which they retired and because of the fact that it is not possible for them to secure employment. In that situation, they are obliged to live on their pensions. I again suggest to the Minister that when the amending scheme is introduced account should be taken of the circumstances in which those personnel were obliged to retire.

Mr. A. Byrne

I wish to support the points which have been made by Deputy Cosgrave. The sums which have been made available for those men are, in my opinion, utterly inadequate.In view of the fact that we have an overburdened market as far as getting employment is concerned, it will be impossible for any of those men to secure positions in private life. The pensions which are being paid to them are quite inadequate. Men who have given such valuable service to the country while serving in the Army should, I suggest, get more generous treatment. That is necessary because of the high rents they have to pay, and the fact that so many of them are now beyond the age either to train for or take up any other business. I join with Deputy Cosgrave in urging on the Minister that something better should be done for those men than what is contained in the proposals we have before us now.

Mr. Traynor

I must, at the outset, express my agreement with the remarks which some Deputies have made as to the difficulty they find in attempting to discuss a measure of this kind because, as Deputy Cosgrave has said, the House has either to accept or reject it. It is, however, an old parliamentary device and not something new which has been recently introduced. It is a device which appears to have weathered the storms of the years. It is the method adopted of bringing a measure of this kind into the House and of having a decision registered on it.

The main objection, as far as I could glean from the discussion, is on the matter of differentiation between various pensions. Well, little can be done in that respect. I have explained the situation on quite a number of occasions. There is nothing that I can do, or that the Department can do, to alter the situation in the matter of that differentiation.

Pensions, as Deputies will realise, are based on pay. The amount of the pension is in proportion to the pay which the recipient had before retirement. The persons to whom Deputies have been referring and who retired, say, in 1946, had a lower rate of pay than those who retired in 1949 and 1951. I should say, however, that the persons who retired before September, 1946, were not completely ignored,because if Deputies will throw their minds back they will remember that there was an increase—a 30 per cent. flat rate for officers and varying rates for soldiers so that persons who retired before September, 1946, got the same increase as those who retired after but before September 1949. Since then there have been two pay increases. The person who retired before September, 1949, will, however, be on a lower rate of pension than the person who went out afterwards.

That position will continue until some general action is taken by this or some other Government as regards giving some further increases to all pensioners. Not only the Army but the Civic Guards, the civil servants and the teachers would be affected by any action that I would take, if it were possible for me to take such action, and naturally, there would be an outcry from these groups against an apparent differentiation between the pensions they were receiving and the pensions that I was enabling the Army to get. Therefore, until such time as some form of general action may be taken to bring all pensions up, I do not think there is anything that I can do about those who retired before September, 1949. I do not see how it would be possible for me to do anything in that respect. I am saying that now because I do not want to make any promise as regards the scheme which will be introduced in the autumn.

I do not think there is anything else I can say. I imagine that will be the main theme of the discussion, but I want to make that clear to the House. In regard to the difficulties which Deputies see—and I know that a number of them are being interviewed on this by ex-Army officers and soldiers who are naturally making an effort to get the benefit of the increases which will arise out of this particular scheme —there is nothing that either they or I can do to include them in the present increases, which will apply only to personnel who retired after 1st September, 1949. As I say, the increases are based on pay increases, and it is on that level that we will have to deal with the situation.

Question put and agreed to.