Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1959

Vol. 178 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1959—Money Resolution.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken) (for the Minister for Finance)

I move:

That it is expedient to authorise such charges on and payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof and such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to provide for the increase of certain pensions payable in respect of public service.

Yesterday Deputy Norton asked the Minister for Finance the number of civil servants who were to benefit under this Bill and in reply he was told that 1,439 civil service pensioners were to benefit. There seems to have been some misunderstanding by Deputy Norton as to what was covered by civil service pensioners because, later in the debate yesterday afternoon, they were confused with Exchequer pensioners. When Deputy Sweetman was Minister for Finance in 1956 he was asked in the Seanad the number of Exchequer pensioners and he gave the figure at 6,760.

Under this Bill Exchequer pensioners to the number of 5,068 will benefit. I have the figures broken up here if the Deputies would like to hear them. Under £100 there are 1,042; from £100 to £150, 741; from £150 to £200, 1,051; from £200 to £300, 1,572; from £300 to £450, 422 and over £450 a year there are 240. That is a total of 5,068.

Mr. Sweetman

Could the Minister explain why there is such a considerably smaller number of pensioners now than in 1956?

Mr. Aiken

This deals with pre-1952 pensioners.

Mr. Sweetman

I see what the Minister means. That is not the total number of pensioners. It is the total of the pensioners covered in this Bill?

Mr. Aiken

Yes.

Mr. Norton

When the Minister for Health was replying yesterday to a question I put to the Minister for Finance his reply was delivered in a temporarily noisy House and I missed some portion of it. I got the end of the reply in which he said he could not supply particulars of certain categories of pensions. As I had heard these particulars supplied in 1956, I asked why it was not possible now to give information that was given in 1956. When I tried to see what answer the Minister had given in reply I found that the written reply had been temporarily annexed by another person but when I recovered the reply last night I found it contained sufficient information for my purpose. I want to make it clear that I have no complaint to make.

Mr. Aiken

Thank you.

Mr. Dillon

It appears to me that one of the essential elements of a proposal of this kind is that it should be applied to all classes. In some circumstances that is not possible because there is not enough money to do it but could the Minister give me an approximate figure of what it would cost to bring in the members of the Civil Service who retired to the date in November, 1952 and to the date in 1956 when the basic rates of the whole Civil Service were altered up? There must be a microscopic group and we shall leave a few dozen people labouring under a deep sense of grievance in the particularly distressing circumstances that, in the ordinary course of nature, it is unlikely that we shall get an opportunity to redress their grievance if we do not do it now.

I think it is a very hard thing, when you are dealing with a group of over 5,000 and trying to make some contribution towards relieving their problems, that you leave, perhaps, 20 people who feel that they have been just unfortunate and leave them with a deep sense of grievance that their misfortune arises from the fact, not that there is an exchequer emergency and that there is not money to pay them, but because it is administratively inconvenient to cover their case. I want to impress on the Minister strongly that there is a peculiarly acute sense of grievance among a microscopic group of public servants who have just got caught between the date mentioned in this Bill in November, 1952 and the date in 1956 on which all salaries were increased and which would have accrued to their pension rate benefit had they been allowed to remain in the public service up to that day. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me any estimate of what it would cost to relieve their circumstances and whether, if it is as small a sum as I believe it to be, he could not consider doing something to meet their particular case.

Mr. Norton

I mentioned yesterday, in the course of the debate, that in Britain and the Six Counties pensioners had received since 1920, or could receive, the benefit of seven pensions increase Acts which have been passed there. The latest Act applicable in Britain and the Six Counties for the year 1959 provides for increases in pensions in the case of officers who retired up to as late as the 1st April, 1957. We are providing no increase whatever in the case of persons who retired after October, 1952. Therefore, if you compare the position of a pensioner in, say, Strabane, and that of a pensioner in Letterkenny, the Strabane pensioner, whose territory is connected with ours by a bridge, if he retired in 1950, can get the benefits of the legislation passed in the Six Counties since he retired. Any person in Strabane who retired up to the 1st April, 1957 can get increases in pensions under the legislation passed since that date. Here, however, a person who retired cannot get any increase in pension if he retired after October, 1952. In other words, the pensioners living in Strabane can get increases if they retired up to April, 1957, whereas, if a pensioner lives across the bridge in Letterkenny, he can get no increase unless he retired before 1952. That means that our pensioners, vis-a-vis their counterparts in the Six Counties and Britain, are at a disadvantage inasmuch as the pension increases are denied to them unless they have retired before November, 1952, whereas in these other areas they can get the pension increases if they retired as late as February, 1957.

The hardship is all the greater here because of the substantial increase in living costs, particularly during the past two and a half years. Knowing he is not making any provision for persons who retired after October, 1952, could the Minister at this stage say whether he hopes to be in a position to deal with the really meritorious claims of those who have retired since November, 1952 and for whom no provision in the way of an increase in pensions is made in this Bill? Is there any prospect that an increase is in sight for those who have been shut out of this Bill because of the fact they retired after October, 1952?

Mr. Aiken

This Bill attempts no more than to deal with the hardship on those who were pensioned off before the 1st November, 1952. If the Minister for Finance had taken in all the pensioners who retired after that date, there would be less out of this particular sum of money for those who are, I think, worse off relatively. I am afraid I have not got the figure Deputy Dillon wants of the number of people who have retired between November, 1952 and this date, but those who retired after November, 1952, had the benefit of being retired on a pension calculated on an increased salary.

Mr. Dillon

No, the increase did not come until 1956.

Mr. Aiken

There was an increase on the 1st November, 1952. There was another increase since. Those who retired since 1956 are entitled to a pension calculated on the basis of their retiring salary. All who retired after November, 1952 enjoyed a larger salary at the time of their retiral and, consequently, a higher pension than those with whom we are dealing in this Bill, that is, the people who retired before 1948 and between 1948 and 1952.

It is regrettable that we cannot deal with all the consequences of the inflationary trend we spoke about yesterday which has been going on roughly since the middle of the last war. However, I think we are making provision for the civil servants who have been very badly affected by it, namely, those who retired before 1952. We are making provision for them, but we cannot make provision for the other categories of citizens who have also been adversely affected by this trend.

Deputy Norton compared what happened here with what happened in Britain. I can assure him that the civil servants in Great Britain and the Six Counties are not satisfied or would like to get more than the increases they have got to date. It is calculated that to give full parity to all the civil servants who retired before this year with those who retired on the present level of salaries would require £55,000,000 from the British Exchequer. In fact, all the British Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself prepared to give was £11,000,000. We could, of course, do better than we are doing in this Bill for the restricted number of people involved but if we did so, we would have to do worse for other categories of citizens. That is the dilemma with which the Minister for Finance has always to contend. It is not that he is ungenerous and would not like to do what everybody asks but he feels compelled, as custodian of the finances of the people generally, to say that he cannot do certain things he would like to do and that other people would like him to do.

Mr. Sweetman

I should like to get some figures straight. The Minister gave us some figures yesterday. I do not think they were exactly comparable figures. As I understand it, the total cost of this Bill in a full year is £70,000, decreasing. The total cost of the equivalent Bill in 1956 was £140,000, decreasing, presumably, also. Of that £140,000 then, increases to civil servants amounted to £37,000; to national teachers, £40,000 and there was £28,000 to the Garda Síochána and other State pensioners. Could the Minister give, in relation to this £70,000, a similar breakdown as between civil servants, teachers and Garda pensioners?

Apart from that, as well as I understand the figures, in 1956 the Army pensions increase was £40,000 in a full year. What is the increase in Army pensions in respect of the current Bill as apart from military service pensions?

Mr. Aiken

I gave Deputy Sweetman the figures yesterday and he repeated them to-day and again I confirm them, that the cost to the Exchequer of the present Bill, covering the categories involved, in a full year is £70,000. The corresponding increase in the 1956 Bill was £140,000.

In regard to the increases to civil servants—I think I had better put it in percentages because the figure I have here is what the civil servants would get extra this year—of the total of this £70,000, for a full year, the civil servants will get approximately 35 per cent.; the national teachers will also get about 35 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the £70,000 will go to other pensioners. Will that be sufficient for the Deputy?

Mr. Sweetman

Perfectly, on that, but can the Minister give me the Army pensions figure?

Mr. Aiken

The increase for military service pensions will cost about £34,000.

Mr. Sweetman

For Army pensions?

Mr. Aiken

No, military service pensions.

Mr. Sweetman

It is the Army pensions figure I want. I think it must be £26,000. I think the Minister said yesterday that it was £70,000 and £60,000, to make £130,000. If the military service pensions are £34,000, that would leave £26,000. I think that must be the Army pensions figure.

Mr. Aiken

About £26,000.

Mr. Sweetman

I am glad the Minister confirms my arithmetic.

Mr. Norton

Will these increases be payable before Christmas?

Mr. Aiken

Already, in regard to the civil servants, all the categories involved in this Bill have got them. The Minister for Defence will have to bring in a Bill to cover military service pensioners but they are also getting them; they have to be confirmed in a Bill. In the case of the local government pensioners instructions will be issued by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Norton

Is the position then that all those for whom the Minister for Finance is the paymaster for pension purposes have already been paid?

Mr. Aiken

Since 1st August.

Mr. Norton

Does that apply to resigned and dismissed D.M.P. and R.I.C. men?

Mr. Aiken

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.