Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I do so on behalf of the Minister for Finance, who is unable to be present.

This Bill provides for the payment of the increases in civil pensions payable from the Exchequer or other public funds, including the funds of local and harbour authorities, which the Minister for Finance announced in the Budget last April. Under the authority of an Additional Estimate passed by this House on 21st July last, increases have already been paid in most cases with effect from 1st August last. This Bill now provides permanent statutory authority for the payments. Army Retired Pay, Disability Pensions and Military Service Pensions are not covered by this Bill; the increases in these pensions will be covered by separate legislation.

The Bill provides increases of 6 per cent. on pensions that were calculated on the salaries payable prior to the general Civil Service pay increase of 1st November, 1948, and 4 per cent. on pensions calculated on the salaries payable during the period after the general pay increase of 1st November, 1948, and before the pay increase of 1st November, 1952. In some instances the pay increases corresponding to the Civil Service pay increases of 1st November, 1948, or 1st November, 1952, were granted on other dates. In such cases the actual date of the pay increase will be adopted to determine whether a 6 per cent. or 4 per cent. increase is payable, and provision has been made accordingly in the Bill. In speaking of the 1st November, 1948, and the 1st November, 1952, I should wish to be understood as referring also to any alternative dates that are prescribed or may be determined under the Bill.

This year's pensions increases are directed to the relief of those whose pensions were calculated on salaries below the rates which came into effect with the general pay increase of November, 1952. The pre-November, 1948, pensioners, who are longest retired, will get the higher increase of 6 per cent. so as to bring their pensions further towards the 1952 level. No increase is proposed for pensions which were calculated wholly on the increased rates of salary payable on or after the 1st November, 1952. As a corollary, any pension which has already been brought up to the November, 1952, level by a previous pension increase will not get any further increase under the Bill, and no pension may be increased under the Bill beyond the amount which would be payable to a colleague of identical rank and service who retired on the 1st November, 1952, and whose pension was calculated wholly by reference to the higher salary rates introduced on that date.

The classes of pensions to be increased are described in the Schedule to the Bill. Part I of the Schedule covers the pensions of retired civil servants, teachers, gardaí, etc., whose pensions were fixed by reference to levels of remuneration obtaining prior to the pay increase of 1st November, 1948, or the appropriate alternative date. These pensions will be increased by 6 per cent. Any other pension which was included in Part I of the Schedule to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, and which has not yet been raised to the November, 1952, level, will be increased by 4 per cent. subject to the application of the overriding maximum to which I have already referred. The percentage increases will be calculated on the pension as it stands, including any increases under previous Acts.

Part II of the Schedule covers the pensions payable to the widows and children of Ministers and holders of parliamentary offices and to the widows of gardaí, etc. Most of these pensions are payable at fixed rates which do not vary automatically with pay increases. The basis rates of these pensions were fixed prior to 1948; they have already been increased under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1950, and 1956, and they will now be increased by the 6 per cent. appropriate to pre-November, 1948, pensions. The increases establish new fixed rates which will be effective for future pensions as well as for pensions currently in course of payment.

Most of the pensions to be increased under the Bill were calculated on the annual salary payable at the date of the officer's retirement. In a small number of cases, however, pension was calculated on average salary for the three years preceding retirement. Special provision has been made in Section 7 of the Bill to allow part of the 6 per cent. or 4 per cent. increase, proportionate to the part of the three-year average period which fell before the 1st November, 1948, or the 1st November, 1952, respectively, to be given in such cases. Any similar cases among local authority or harbour authority pensioners have been provided for in Parts III and IV of the Schedule to the Bill.

A small number of pensioners, mainly higher civil servants, who retired prior to the pay increase of 15th January, 1951, received pensions which were affected by the salary reduction known as the "supercut". The supercut, which originated as a reduction in the cost-of-living bonus on higher Civil Service salaries, continued over into the consolidated salary rates which obtained from 1946 onwards until it was removed partially in 1948 and completely in January, 1951.

The pensions payable to officers who retired while the supercut was in force were based on the lower salaries. Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, these pensioners were given either a revision of pension to restore the supercut reduction or the appropriate percentage increase under the Act, whichever was the more favourable. Following representations from the pensioners concerned, these provisions are now being amended by Section 2 of the present Bill to restore the supercut reduction in all cases and to allow the appropriate percentage increases under the 1956 Act and this Bill. The effect of this will be to bring the basis of these pensions into line with the pensions of other ranks of the Civil Service whose pensions were based on salaries in which the cost-of-living bonus element was not subject to reduction.

Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Bill authorise the appropriate increases in the pensions payable from the Exchequer. Sections 5 and 6 empower local authorities and harbour authorities to grant increases in the pensions payable by them which are specified in Part III and Part IV of the Schedule. The increases will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Health in the case of local authority pensions and to the approval of the Minister for Transport and Power in the case of harbour authority pensions. The increases allowed will be similar in amount and will be generally subject to the conditions and limitations governing increases in Exchequer pensions.

Section 8 of the Bill provides the commencing date of increases, which will be the 1st August, 1959, or the date of commencement of pension if later.

Various consequential provisions will be found in Section 10 which provides, in particular, for the application to the pension, as increased, of the statutory provisions as to payment, etc., applicable to the original pension. It also provides that any increase in the Bill shall not be assessed as means for the purpose of an old age pension or a widow's non-contributory pension.

The cost to the Exchequer of the increases provided under this Bill is estimated at over £70,000 in a full year, including Exchequer payments to local authorities to cover part of the increase payable by them. In the current year the cost will be over £38,000. The balance of the £72,000 voted by this House in July last will be required for increases in Army and Military Service Pensions which will be covered in separate legislation. Including the increases in these pensions, the total cost to the Exchequer of the 1959 pensions increases is estimated at almost £130,000 in a full year.

I recommend this Bill to the House for its approval.

Mr. Sweetman

This Bill follows the announcement by the Minister for Finance in the Budget of an increase in the rates of pension payable but there are two aspects in relation to which the Bill falls very short of what is expected by those affected. In the first place, I failed to understand—I have not got the text—in so far as I could hear it the reply to-day of the Minister for Finance to Deputy Norton about the categories, the number of pensioners in each category.

In 1956, when the Bill was going through the House there was no difficulty whatever in obtaining the segregation of the number of pensioners under seven different categories running from under £100 per annum to over £450 per annum. The total number of pensioners then involved in respect of pensions paid from State funds was 6,800. Of those, 1,570 were in receipt of pensions of under £100 per annum; 530 received pensions of between £100 and £125 per annum; 515 received pensions of between £125 and £150 per annum; 1,710 received pensions of between £150 and £200 per annum; 1,730 received pensions of between £200 and £300 per annum and 360 received pensions of between £300 and £450 per annum.

Mr. Norton

There were 205 who received pensions of £450 and over.

Mr. Sweetman

That makes a total of 6,800.

Mr. Norton

Has the Department of Finance gone on strike since those days?

Mr. Sweetman

I cannot understand the Minister, in reply to a question, saying that the information was not now available. The information was available then and the Minister for Finance should have made it available. The reason that information should be so available is the difference between the approach made by the present Minister for Finance and the approach made in 1956.

The smaller pensions in 1956 received a very much greater increase than is being given in this Bill. Then, as now, the pensioner with £450 per annum received six per cent. or, to be more strictly accurate, then he always received six per cent. Now in certain circumstances he receives only four per cent. but the person with the small pension and who, therefore, found the cost of living increase pinching hardest upon him was given an increase of 15 per cent. compared with the six per cent. or the four per cent. offered by the Minister in this Bill.

The person between the limits of £125 and £150 per annum, under our scheme, got an increase of 12 per cent. and the person between £200 and £300 per annum, under our scheme, got nine per cent. This Government think that people with small pensions like these should be restricted and cut down in some cases, as I say, to less than half of what they were given by the Act passed in 1956.

Apart from that the Bill falls short very materially in another aspect. It takes no account whatever of the hardship that pensioners who retired since 1955 had to suffer between that date and 1958. We all know that in 1955 there was an increase in the pay of civil servants and people paid by the State. A person who retired after 1955 retired on the basis of the pay calculated by reference to the increase which he had obtained but the person who retired between 1952 and 1955 received nothing under this Bill and was not in the Service to get the increase allotted in 1955. He, therefore, is getting the knock in the measure now introduced by the Minister.

In addition, there was another increase in 1958. I cannot remember whether it was at the end of 1957 or at the beginning of 1958 but the exact date is immaterial. Anybody who retired since 1958 has had his pension calculated on his Civil Service salary as augmented by the 1958 increase, but anybody who retired before 1958, between 1955 and 1958, is not getting any increase in pension under this Bill.

Surely the Minister must acknowledge, particularly for those who retired between 1952 and 1955 and who are not given any benefit under this Bill, that the cost of living has gone up since 1952 just as much as it has gone up for everyone else who has to take account of what has to be bought week in and week out, but there is no provision at all for them.

I do not understand why, when the Minister was introducing this Bill, he not alone did not, first of all, give increases of six per cent. and four per cent. to all pensioners but did not, in addition, follow the pattern set by us in the 1956 Act and give a greater increase to those at the bottom of the scale who needed it so badly and why he did not make provision more particularly for those who retired between 1952 and 1955 who are feeling the pinch at this time more and, perhaps a great deal more, than anyone else.

Mr. Norton

So far as I can ascertain, the approximate cost of this pension increase is £72,000 in respect of the eight months ending March, 1960, but the pension increase of 1956 provided for an increase of £120,000 and the increase provided for in the 1950 Act was £200,000, so that, in fact, the increase provided now appears to be the smallest of the three increases, although the cost of living to-day is higher, and substantially higher, than it was in 1950 or 1956. I do not think this Bill measures up adequately to the plight of many State pensioners. It must not be forgotten that the deliberate purpose of this Bill is to provide an increase of only six per cent. for those who retired before November, 1948, and 4 per cent. for those who retired between November, 1948, and October, 1952.

So far as those who retired from 1st November, 1952, to date are concerned, there will be no increase whatever over and above the pension as calculated at the time of retirement. It may be said that the person who retired last month or the month before or six months ago has had his pension based upon his income. That is so. There are a substantial number of persons who retired between November, 1952, and last year. There will be no increase whatever in their pensions. They will not receive as much as a farthing increase in pension, notwithstanding the fact that through the deliberate policy of the Fianna Fáil Government substantial increases have taken place in the cost of living since they retired and especially since the Budget of 1957.

Those who retired after November, 1952, will get no compensation whatever for the Budgetary increases brought about by the Government's deliberate policy. They will get no increase whatever to compensate them for any other increases in prices or living costs which have taken place, as admittedly they have taken place during the past two and a half years. If it is true, as some propagandists for the Government allege, that the country is now making rapidly for the broad highway of prosperity, it seems rather strange that such parsimonious increases for such a small number of persons represent the Government's appraisal of the need of these persons.

One would think the Government would have found justification for a much more substantial increase in the amount of the pensions and in the date of application of the increases. The increases will be given only to those who retired before November, 1952. Because they are getting older in years, the Government's liability will be a dwindling one. Nothing is being done in respect of those who retired since November, 1952, and who have had to take the full impact of the Government's high prices policy.

Let us look at what this Bill does in relation to the two previous Acts. Under the 1950 Pensions (Increase) Act, pensions were increased by from 20 to 50 per cent. In the 1956 Act, the pensions were increased by from 6 to 15 per cent, the emphasis in both cases being on the lower rate of pension. In other words, the lower the rate of pension, the better the percentage increase. As against the two previous increases of from 20 to 50 per cent. and 6 to 15 per cent., we get the miserable increases of 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. under this Bill. You cannot get the 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. increase unless (1) you retired 11 years ago or (2) you retired seven years ago. This is treating our State pensioners with particular callousness.

In Britain and in the Six Counties, they have introduced and passed into law seven increase Acts since 1920. Here we have had three, this being the third. The other two were in 1950 and 1956. The increases we are now proposing to give represent the lowest and feeblest effort we have made to relieve the plight of these unfortunate people. In 1956, when we were giving an increase varying from 6 to 15 per cent., and when the cost of living was much lower than it is today, the present Tánaiste came here to outpour his heart and soul in sympathy with the pensioners. He then said that the Bill of 1956 was one of the consequences of the failure to check the rising cost of living. If he looks at the 1956 increase figures and compares them with the 1959 increase figures, the humour of that comment must be apparent even to the Tánaiste. He went on to say:

It is a Bill, in fact, to mitigate the hardship to which the continuing upward trend in prices has subjected many hapless people, most of them incapable of serious work, who were retired on pension in days when circumstances were easier and who had been looking forward to comfortable security in their old age. It cannot be denied that the hardship exists and that in the majority of cases it is severe. Accordingly ... we are not opposing the Bill ... Indeed, the one criticism I have heard of the reliefs to be granted under the Bill is that, so far as the smaller pensions are concerned, they are meagre indeed;

That speech was delivered by the present Tánaiste in November, 1956, as reported at column 960 of the Official Report.

He had sympathy then with the pensioners. The increases were meagre, although up to 15 per cent. was granted as compared with a maximum of 6 per cent. now. He had the fullest sympathy then even though the cost of living was lower than it is now. He was full of sympathy for them in 1956, although, three years afterwards, his Government do not propose to do anything for anybody who retired after November, 1952, notwithstanding the substantial rise in the cost of living during the past two and a half years. It is hard to imagine that the finances of the State are in such a parlous condition that the Government could not grant an increase in pensions of an amount greater than is provided for in this Bill or in the Estimate which we passed earlier in the year.

The Minister, even now, if he has any belief or faith in the statements about a dynamic recovery in the economy, ought to find some more money to do justice to people who served the State to the best of their ability during their years of physical and intellectual vigour. They are now entitled to say to the Government: "Since you permitted the value of money to decrease, you ought not impose that hardship on those who served the State. You ought to try to pay them their pensions, if not in the money values originally contracted for, at least by some method of compensation which would adequately provide for inoculation against the shrunken value of money in the meantime."

The Minister has again seen fit to impose what is known as the overriding limitation, that is, that, while you may apparently get a 4 per cent. or a 6 per cent. increase, if the effect is to give you something more than the person who retired immediately after the dates provided for in the Bill, you will not get the 4 per cent. and you will not get the 6 per cent. Persons who have written to me on this subject have indicated that under this so-called Pensions (Increase) Bill, the increase they will get will be, in some cases, 3d. a month; and in other cases, 6d. a month; and in other cases, 7d. a month. That is what this Pensions (Increase) Bill will mean to a number of people because of the continued insistence by the Government on the overriding limitation that any increase under this Bill will not bring them over a certain limit, that limit being whatever is received in pension by a person who retires after the dates specified.

The Minister ought to take this Bill back to the Government and say that, since the cost is so little in dealing with so wide a problem, they should provide more money in order to make some better impression, and to meet the obligations which they clearly owe to those who have served the State in many fields of endeavour and who are feeling the pinch very acutely because of the increase in the cost of living and the corresponding decrease in the purchasing value of money.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is true to say that whenever a measure of this sort is introduced, it gets a sympathetic reception but, on this occasion, our sympathy must be tempered by reason of the inadequate increases being granted under the terms of the Bill. As has been said by the Minister, and by other speakers, the position is that this Bill grants increases varying between four per cent. and six per cent.

In 1956, just three years ago, when a similar Pensions (Increase) Bill was introduced, the Tánaiste criticised it on the grounds that it was entirely inadequate. On that occasion, the Bill granted increases of pensions ranging from 15 per cent. to six per cent. Since then the cost of living has increased quite considerably, especially between the period February, 1957, to February of this year. Some play has been made with the fact that the August figure showed a small drop. Since August, there have been substantial increases in the price of eggs and the price of bread and generally, despite the slight reduction in the August figure, the cost of living is considerably higher than it was three years ago.

It is probably an interesting commentary on that fact that although earlier this afternoon, the Tánaiste dealt with a couple of measures on behalf of the Minister for Finance, he handed over responsibility for dealing with this measure to his colleague lest he be reminded of the remarks which he himself made when the 1956 measure was before the House. I feel, as Deputy Norton did when he referred to it, that the criticism which was made by Deputy MacEntee in 1956 could be reinforced on this occasion by reason of the fact that while the cost of living has increased during the past two and a half years, this Pensions (Increase) Bill provides the very meagre increase of four per cent. to six per cent., whereas the previous measure granted increases varying between six per cent. and 15 per cent.

In discussing a measure which covers so many categories of pensioners, it is difficult to make a segregation from an omnibus provision such as that in the Schedule. I have received representations which other Deputies have probably received as well. It is impossible to understand why these categories of pensioners are not covered. I refer to pensioners who were members of the Civil Service serving in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. They retired in April or May, 1951, and they expected they would get an increase of four per cent. but instead, when they got the increase in August last, it amounted to 6/8d. per annum. When I received these representations, I took the matter up with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs expecting to find some mistake had occurred. After the Department had examined it, they informed me that the increase was the appropriate one, and the pensioners in this particular category who retired in April or May, 1951, find that instead of the four per cent. increase, which is the lower one, they get only 6/8d. per annum.

Mr. Norton

Some get 3/- per annum.

Mr. Cosgrave

I feel the Minister should reconsider this matter most sympathetically because, without exaggeration, it surely would have been better not to have held out any hope of an increase than to give an increase of 6/8d. per annum.

There are other categories of pensioners, notably, I think, teachers, who find that, having retired at the earlier date, they have a lower pension than those who retired subsequently because they had the benefit of an increase in salary in the meantime. At least, the person who was in a position to work on to a later period— although he, like the person who retired earlier, was affected by any increase in the cost of living—had the advantage of drawing a higher salary so that the general economic position of persons who retired earlier is worse, both because of their earlier retirement on pension and because they now find that their pensions are still below the pensions of persons employed in a similar capacity who probably succeeded them in some cases.

This Pensions (Increase) Bill provides only a sum of something like £70,000 in a full year. According to the Minister, this year it provides £38,000. The Bill passed in 1956 provided a sum of £140,000. Since then, as I mentioned, the cost of living has increased and the proposals in this measure are inadequate to meet that increase. They are particularly ungenerous to certain categories who either because of the terms under which they retire or the particular provisions of the Bill, fail to get the increase or an increase comparable to that of other sections.

As I say, in a measure of this sort, dealing with so many categories, it is not easy to segregate under which provision particular pensioners come. I feel that the officers of the appropriate Departments should carefully scrutinise the categories of retired pensioners to see that they are all included. If they are not included, and are prevented from getting even the four per cent. or the six per cent. as the case may be, the measure should be amended to include them, rather than to leave some pensioners in the position, that though they have smaller pensions than people who have retired having occupied similar positions— possibly in some cases their successors —they now find themselves not merely with lower pensions but not provided for in this measure.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I want to say a few words to add my protest—if that is the proper word—against the inadequacy of the measure of relief provided for State servants retiring under the terms of this Bill. I want to speak very largely for civil servants, although the remarks I have to make apply generally to all those categories which come within the ambit of the Bill. My desire to place on record my disappointment with the very inadequate provisions arises from the fact that throughout my public career, both from inclination and from conviction, and because of the circumstances in which I found myself, I have always been on the side of the civil servants advocating their rights so far as I could, and putting my convictions, when I got the opportunity, into practice.

The provisions in this Bill can certainly be described as frugal to the point of parsimony. The Minister for Finance in the course of his remarks on the 21st July, 1959, at Column 1535, gave a kind of justification for the parsimony of his proposals. He said that the reason the proposals were as indicated by him at that time, and as they are now in this Bill, was that he had only a limited amount of money. Of course one can justify any proposal on that basis but I think that the matter should have been approached, not on the basis of the amount of money available but on what amount of money was required to meet hardship and to obviate injustice. It would have been far better not to have introduced these provisions at all than to have given the very small alleviations that occur in the course of this Bill and which will benefit only a small number of pensioners.

Nobody who retired in the past six or seven years gets anything. During that time the cost of living has gone up very considerably. The people who get any benefits—as has already been pointed out and examples were given —under this Bill benefit only to a very small extent. Only those categories who retired before 1952 will benefit. I, in common with a number of other Deputies, received letters and representations from my constituents. May I just give two examples of the kind of thing that will happen under this Bill? One is the case of a man who spent over 40 years in the service of this State in a responsible position. While I entirely approve of the expressions of sympathy for those with smaller salaries, I also think that those with bigger salaries are as much entitled to consideration, and to have their position taken into account, as those with very small salaries. It is only a question of degree, a relative matter, a matter of what degree of hardship is imposed by reason of their being passed over.

This man retired on the 20th March, 1952, and his pension was based on his salary at that time. The pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, provided for a six per cent. increase in pension but for some reason which I do not know, he did not get his full six per cent. increase, which would have been £37 9s. 5d. He received only £33 10s. 0d. per annum. Under the increase proposed here he will get nothing whatever, so that in the years that have elapsed since his retirement he has got only the very meagre increase of £33 10s. 0d. per year in his pension, after a life-time's service of a very specialised character with the State.

There is another person who retired somewhere in the middle of 1951. He retired just before the increases were given to the general body of public servants in 1952 and, of course, to that extent he had the misfortune to reach his age limit before these increases. That represented a loss of £30-13-4 per year. Four years later under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, he received an increase of £28 7s. 2d. Since the 1st August last he has been in receipt of 10½d. a week. Why anybody should get an increase of 10½d. under any Bill passes comprehension. Previous speakers have given further examples, Deputy Norton in particular—

Mr. Norton

Three farthing a week.

Mr. J.A. Costello

——of people getting three farthings per week. I submit that there is something wrong with a Bill that produces results of that kind. There are manifest injustices perpertrated on public servants who have given loyal service to the State—I do not like to use very strong language. There is no doubt that an overwhelming case can be made for increase in pensions. It used to be said that when a man retired, no matter what happened,—inflation, deflation or a fall in purchasing power or anything else—he was entitled to a certain pension only but the principle that nothing justifies an increase in that pension has long since been overruled by the practice of this Parliament, and the practice of Parliaments in adjoining countries. I think it was Deputy Norton who referred to the fact that there had been seven increases in pensions for public servants in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that there had been only three or four here. The amount that was given, certainly in Great Britain, is far more generous than has been given to our civil servants. There were increases in 1920, 1924, 1944, 1947, 1954 and 1956 as compared with two increases here. The current Act of the Six Counties, the Pensions Increase Act, 1959, embraces an increase of 12 per cent., grading down to lower percentages for retirement within certain periods.

Mr. Norton

They cover retired persons up to 1957 in Britain and in the Six Counties.

Mr. J.A. Costello

They do: up to 1st April, 1957. We have reached a position where those people who retired in 1952—most of them at 65 years of age—are now 72 years of age. Surely it would be possible by administrative savings in every branch of the public service to save a little more, and it is not very much more that would be required, to do justice to those people who have retired since 1952 and to those who come within the provisions of this Bill but who are very inadequately covered.

The Minister should certainly consider a more generous provision. He has given himself the very minimum amount of money for public servants for this year: surely he should at least hold out some hope to those civil servants who are suffering undoubted hardship after the many years' service they have given in the public service that next year at least more generous provision will be made for them.

Mr. Kyne

Deputy Norton has put the case as seen from the Labour side of the House. I rise simply to add my voice in protest against the delay in providing for these civil servants and pensioners who reside in my constituency. In common with other Deputies from that constituency, I have received numerous protests against the inadequacy of the pensions, where granted, and against the fact that a certain number are alleged to have been completely omitted.

I think it was on Budget day that we got the first indication from the Minister for Finance that it was proposed to introduce a Pensions (Increase) Bill this year. High hopes were raised in the minds of pensioners throughout the country and certainly in my constituency. These hopes were rudely dashed when the terms of the Bill were made known. Only those who retired up to a certain date are included: some get six per cent; some four per cent., but even that, little and all as it is, is subject to an overriding clause that you cannot qualify beyond a certain year.

Regarding that overriding limit, the Retired Civil Servants' Association issued an advertisement in all the Dublin morning papers and in the Cork Examiner on October 2nd, 1959. From an examination of the replies received—close on 60—following the issue of a questionnaire, it appears that of that number, with the exception of three, none receive any increase. Of the other three, two will receive an increase of 6d. per month. That, of an increase of 3d. per month. That, of course, only relates to those who replied to the questionnaire sent out but, at any rate, it shows what little value this Bill is as compensation for the increased cost of living.

In reply to Dáil Question No. 10 on today's Order Paper, the Minister told Deputy O'Higgins that between March 1957 and this year, the purchasing power of the £1 had decreased by 6d. In view of that, there is a compensatory pensions increase giving the magnificent extra amount of 3d. per month. It is on that basis, on the basis that the Bill is totally inadequate and that it does not touch the fringe of what should be done for pensioners that I wish to join my protest to that of the other Deputies.

Mr. Dillon

I am in the difficulty that when we deal with a Bill of this kind it is not open to the Opposition to propose an amendment to redress any inadequacy or anomaly because such amendment might involve a charge on the Exchequer and would therefore be out of order. I want to endorse the representations made by Deputies Sweetman, Costello and Cosgrave and others on the general inadequacy of the provision made. That is naturally the principal topic that would ordinarily be discussed on this stage of the Bill, but in addition to the general inadequacy of the provisions made certain anomalies emerge.

I think we ought to bear in mind, when dealing with pension matters of this kind, that the servants of the State and analogous persons in their original contract of employment, in effect, accept part of their remuneration in the form of pension benefit to accrue to them at the time of their retirement and if they were not building up that right to pension, they would ordinarily receive a proportionately higher salary and the normal procedure for providing for their retirement would be that they would lay aside a certain part of their annual remuneration as a fund on which they would retire when they reached the end of their services, in which event it would be open to them to take the classic precaution against the impact of inflation.

They could arrange their investment programme in such a way—either themselves or through the employment of an experienced investment banker— to ensure that even if in the course of their 30 or 40 years' service, inflation moved against them, the fund they were accumulating would adjust itself so that they would have a proportionately larger fund on which to retire than if they put the money on deposit in the bank. In fact, the universal practice is that they accept a lesser remuneration in consideration of receiving the pension and when they reach the end of their service, usually with family responsibilities and other considerations of that kind arising, the average public servant has not very much other than his pension on which to retire.

I suppose if you compare the responsibilities of public servants and the analogous categories referred to in this Bill with the responsibilities of persons engaged in commercial and professional life, you will find the average remuneration of the public servants is ludicrously low compared with what would be available to such persons if they chose to sell their services to a commercial enterprise rather than to the public service. Many people often forget that.

Therefore I think it behoves the State—and we are the State; we, Oireachtas Éireann, act for the State— to be scrupulous to do justice to those whom we employ on behalf of the people and, if people sometimes fail to understand the value of the service they are getting, we have a duty to remind them of that service. Most of us, on both sides of the House and in the Seanad, who have had experience in the administration of Departments, have often been amazed at the quality of the service the people of this country get from the civil servants of this State, bearing in mind the scale of remuneration they receive, and comparing it with the remuneration available to persons of certainly no superior ability or diligence in other walks of life.

We are all agreed that the rising cost of living or inflation, whichever you care to call it, has borne most heavily on persons dependent on pensions. I find it hard to believe that any section of this House is wholly confident in arranging for an increase of six per cent and four per cent in these pensions, considering the degree to which we all know that the cost of living has risen. Questions were answered here today which illustrate dramatically the difference between the value of a £1 pension which a man received 20 years ago and a similar pension today. I think it is almost true to say that the pound sterling 20 years ago was worth three times the value of the pound today.

It is true there are not many pensioners drawing pensions today who first received them 20 years ago. It is true that in the interval we have taken certain limited measures to keep pace with the depreciation in money, but, as was pointed out by Deputy Costello and Deputy Norton, what we have found ourselves able to do here compares very poorly with what it has been found possible to do in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain on behalf of those who have served this State, and who are today in a condition which the most optimistic could not describe as affluent.

Therefore, I hope the Minister for Finance will note the suggestion made by Deputy Costello that, if he can do no more at present, he should very sympathetically consider an early announcement that on the first possible occasion, some further step will be taken at least to equal on our behalf what the Governments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have felt able to do for their public servants in retirement.

Now I want to mention an anomaly which I find hard to bear because I happen to know some of the civil servants, in the Department with which I was associated when I was in Government, who have been severely hit by it. This Pensions Bill relates only to civil servants who retired prior to 1952.

Mr. Norton

Prior to November, 1952.

Mr. Dillon

There was a salary increase for civil servants in 1956. After 1956, civil servants who retired had their pensions related to the new scale fixed in that year but there was a certain category who retired in 1954 and 1955 who are not getting the benefit of any increase, and whose pensions are reckoned on the basic salary scale prior to the adjustments made in 1956. We are all, I hope, sympathetic and understanding about the great difficulty of preparing legislation of any kind that will cover every conceivable contingency but it is a danger in Ministers for Finance that they use it as a universal excuse for slipshod procedure.

I know that hard cases make bad law but you meet a man who has been 40 years in the public service of this State and he tells you that just because his required age of retirement fell within a particular 18 months, he will get no benefit under this Bill, and he is denied the benefit he would have if he had been allowed to stay on for the 18 months until the new salary scale obtained, and you are told that represents to that man a loss of from £50 to £70 per annum, according to whether you calculate it by reference to the Bill or by reference to what he might have got if he had been allowed stay on. It is all very well to say hard cases make bad law but it is a great exasperation to those who have been associated with such men to have to say to them: "Well, what can I do about it?" and the answer is: "Do whatever is necessary to remove an anomaly of this kind." They will say with absolute truth, as we who are familiar with the Department of Finance well know, that there is no obstacle, or there is no contingency conceivable to the mind of man, that cannot be overcome by the Department of Finance, once the Department of Finance really gets into its mind that the Minister wants to do it.

Many a time and oft I was confronted with a situation in which I was told most delicately by the incomparable officers of the Department of Finance, in the initial stages of the discussion, that it was quite impossible and could not be done. That was demonstrated to conviction until you eventually said: "Very well; I want the impossible done."

Mr. Norton

That is the first law in the Department.

Mr. Dillon

Their first law is to explain that it cannot be done. They are perfectly sympathetic but it cannot be done, but, finally, after suitable discussion and argument, it is communicated to them: "Well, we know it is impossible and now we want it to be done." They then reply: "If it is clear in your mind that is Government policy and you want it done, of course it will be done. It will mean burning more midnight oil, and drafting a more complicated instrument, but it will be done." It always is done.

I want to lay aside, if I may, the general case to which I have referred and dwell on this particular one. I ask the Minister to give it special and sympathetic consideration for the reason that I cannot put down an amendment correctly owing to the Rules of Order prohibiting anybody outside the Ministry making a proposal in this House which would impose a charge upon the Exchequer. The number of persons who are affected, that is, those who retired between November, 1952——

Mr. Sweetman

1st November, 1952.

Mr. Dillon

——and the relevant date in 1956 when new salary scales for civil servants were introduced, cannot be large. It is a melancholy fact that whatever their number, their average period of survival cannot be long so that the modest sum of my petition is that, for the years remaining to them, they should not be left labouring under a sense of acute grievance that because we did not take the trouble carefully to draft this Bill, they have been left out in the cold. It is poor consolation to them to say that at some future date further consideration will be given to their case because these are men and women, 70 and 75 years of age, for whom pious intentions with regard to future actions have little or no interest. I would ask the Minister's very sympathetic consideration in relation to this particularly restricted category which I have sought to describe to him.

Mr. Aiken

In the Budget, the Minister for Finance undertook to spend what the Exchequer could afford on relieving the hardships of the oldest Civil Service pensioners, namely, those who retired before 1948 and before 1952. Everyone will admit that he does not regard the pensions to civil servants as adequate; but the most inadequate are the pensions paid to those civil servants who retired before 1948 and before 1952 on very much lower salaries than were enjoyed by those who retired subsequently.

No, per year. The annual cost is £180,000. There has been a good deal of criticism of the overriding maxima and the calculation of three farthings per week to certain pensioners. If anybody gets only three farthings per week it means that he has heretofore been in a better position than some of his colleagues who retired with him.