I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I think the purpose of this Bill is clear on the face of it and I assume that the House will not expect me to dilate on it unnecessarily. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide women civil servants with superannuation benefits similar to those available to male civil servants.
Superannuation Bill, 1954—Second Stage.
I thought the Minister would explain the reasons which induced him to be so expansive in heart, even if he was brief in tongue when introducing this Bill.
I welcome this Bill because it removes a discrimination which has long been felt by women civil servants. The pensions of all civil servants are, in the main, related to the Superannuation Act of 1859. When that Act was introduced, provision was made for the payment of pensions on the basis of 1/60th for each year of service, subject to a maximum of 46 years. No lump sum was then provided for the civil servants concerned, whether they were males or females. Subsequently, in 1909, a new Superannuation Act was passed. The new Superannuation Act provided that civil servants would have their pensions calculated on the basis of 1/80th of their salary and emoluments for each year of service subject to a maximum of 40/80ths. It also provided for payment of 1/30th of salary and emoluments for each year of service subject to a maximum of 45/30ths. In addition, that Act provided coverage for the next-of-kin in the event of the death, whilst in the Civil Service, of the civil servants concerned.
That Act was generally regarded as a useful piece of reformation so far as the pensions of civil servants were concerned. However, the authorities at the time declined to extend the provisions of that Act to female civil servants. The result is that you have had this rather peculiar anomaly that the pensions of women civil servants were calculated under the Superannuation Act of 1859—which gave them no lump sum on retirement and which gave their next-of-kin no coverage in the event of death—while the superannuation of male civil servants was calculated under the 1909 Act which gave a lesser pension, a lump sum on retirement and coverage for the next-of-kin in the event of the death of the civil servant while in the Civil Service.
Since 1909, there has been keen agitation by female civil servants that they should not be discriminated against by being excluded from the provisions of the 1909 Act. For more than 40 years, keen agitation has been maintained by women civil servants that their pensions should be calculated on the same basis as male civil servants. That agitation is now drawing to a satisfactory conclusion. This Bill removes the discrimination which has operated against women civil servants for so long because it extends the provisions of the 1909 Act, which are applicable now only to male officers, to female civil servants.
This Bill will be welcomed generally by civil servants and, as it represents agreement between the staff organisations and the Minister for Finance, I presume it has the goodwill and the support of the House.
I should like to ask the Minister for Finance why he thought it unnecessary to give us the information which Deputy Norton has now given us. Does it not rather demean the proceedings of the House to present a Bill of this kind and simply say: "The Bill speaks for itself. I have nothing to add"? Manifestly, the Bill does not speak for itself. There is a long history behind this whole story. Does the Minister for Finance not think he should have told the House that story? Now, I agree that when a gladiator is about to die in the arena, the dignified thing is to appear to die willingly. I hope the Minister for Finance will be spared to shed the radiance of his personality upon us for many a long year to come and when I speak of death in this context I think only of political demise. May I urge upon him that the shadow of his pending political dissolution should not so far depress him as to paralyse his tongue in this House? He is still very welcome to speak here and we always muster an audience, albeit a small one, to hear what he has to say.
Will Deputy Dillon now come to the Bill which is before this House?
I cannot do that because the Minister did not do so.
The Bill is before the House. What has to be discussed is the Bill.
I am asking the Minister why he did not talk of it. I am asking him if he is suffering from paralysis of the tongue or paralysis of the spirit. I cannot imagine that what he did was out of a bland desire to affront the House. I have heard nothing from the Minister for Finance about this Bill. The only thing I have heard about it is what Deputy Norton has told us.
The Bill is before the House. Whether or not the Minister spoke to it is no concern of mine. What is to be discussed is the Bill.
But it is my business, and I am asking the Minister why he did not talk. I am saying to the Minister that I was entitled to hear him talk on this Bill.
I have allowed the Deputy to go as far as I will permit him to go on that matter. Deputy Dillon will now discuss the Bill.
Why did the Minister not tell us that this Bill is an extension of the Superannuation Act of 1909? Why did the Minister not tell us that this Bill is to bestow on female civil servants benefits which male civil servants have enjoyed since the Superannuation Act of 1909? Why did he not tell us that this Bill represents an agreed solution of an old difficulty between himself and the staff associations? Why did the Minister not tell us whether or not this Bill will impose any additional burden on the Treasury; and, if so, how much? Why did the Minister tell us nothing at all? I think we are entitled to know. Will the Minister now tell us? May we assume that Deputy Norton's summary of the history leading up to this Bill is correct, according to the Minister's information? Can he tell us does this involve any additional charge; and, if so, is it a matter of substance? And can he, within the rules of relevance, tell us, as he is concluding, why he has been silent up to now?
It is quite unusual for me to receive a tribute such as Deputy Dillon has just paid me. He has actually urged me to make a speech. I think there were times when Deputy Dillon would prefer that I should remain silent. He has asked me a number of questions, all of which can be answered in one sentence. It is quite impossible, of course, for Deputy Dillon to deal with any matter, whether major or minor, in one sentence. What we are discussing here on the Second Reading of the Bill is the principle of the Bill. And the principle of this Bill, as stated by me, is to give to women civil servants the same pension rights as are enjoyed by men. Whether that involves a change in the circumstances which have existed here since 1859 is, I think, quite irrelevant——
Do you?
——unless I was going to worsen the position of the female civil servants. Therefore, I take it I have fully and succinctly dealt with the heart of the matter, when I have said as I already indicated, that this Bill will give to women civil servants precisely the same superannuation rights as are at present enjoyed by men. If Deputy Dillon takes exception to that, he is at liberty to vote against the principle. He would be voting against that principle, and for a man like Deputy Dillon for whom principle always comes before expediency, I think the number of minor details like the number benefiting by it or the cost of the Bill would be almost irrelevant. He might, in his more prudent moments, in the moments when he is not spending millions of dollars in an afternoon, think of mundane matters like pounds, shillings and pence, but if he did, knowing Deputy Dillon as we know him here on the floor of the House, we should all be much surprised.
I have given the House all the information that is necessary at this stage. On the Committee Stage of the Bill I will be prepared to deal with any query which Deputy Dillon may wish to bring up but I put it to him that at this stage what he has to do is to endorse the principle that women are entitled to the same superannuation rights and terms as men.
I would like to ask a question: does the Minister for Finance seriously state in this House that in bringing forward a Superannuation Bill it is supererogatory on his part to tell the House what it is likely to cost because if we reach that stage bedlam is indeed upon us? If the Minister for Finance at this stage thinks that the House should accept and pass the Superannuation Act without any reference to what it costs, then——
The Deputy is only entitled to ask a question.
I will ask the question— are you going to give the cost, or do you declare that is irrelevant?
I have said that that would be irrelevant at this stage.
Well, you are daft.
If the Deputy will just hold his horses. The Deputy is well aware that the Committee Stage of this Bill cannot be taken until the Dáil has discussed the Money Resolution. On the Money Resolution I will inform the House what the Bill is likely to cost and on the information then given to him Deputy Dillon can decide whether he is going to retreat from acceptance of the principle, as I assume he will accept it on the Second Reading of this Bill. He is quite at liberty then when the Money Resolution is before the House—which I would suggest is the more appropriate occasion to discuss the financial aspects of the Bill—to take whatever course he thinks fit.
You know the cost and you will not tell us?
Question put and agreed to.
Next stage?
If Deputy Dillon is prepared to allow me——
No, Sir. Let it be taken next week.
Committee Stage will be taken next Wednesday.
You would have got your Bill to-day if you had behaved yourself. You never get anything through this House if you kick up your heels.
I would have got my Bill to-day if you had not blocked it.