I move the following motion in the names of members of the Fine Gael Party:
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that members of the Garda Síochána who retired prior to 21st December 1960, should have the rent allowances which were paid to them treated as a pensionable emolument just as members serving since December 1960, enjoy that right.
I was tempted last week to dovetatil this motion into the preceding Private Members' Motion which dealt with the Common Market. The relevancy of that might not be readily apparent but I am nevertheless moved to succumb to the temptation once again, in this way: It is common case, I think, that one of the requirements in the Common Market is that all countries that are members shall adopt similar economic and social patterns, including a pattern of wages and of pension schemes. While we do not wish to have this motion treated as part of an all-embracing pension scheme because of certain objections which the Minister for Finance might have, I should like to point out that in several of the member countries of the European Economic Community already pensions are tied to existing salaries and wages, instead of, as we have here, pensions being tied to what people earned while they were employed. In several countries on the continent, pensions at any particular time are related entirely to the wages and salaries paid to people of a similar rank who are still serving. I would list, for instance, that in France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Spain, retired pay goes up automatically, that is to say, pensions go up automatically, when current pay and salaries go up. That is in relation to what might be called the fighting services, but so far as even the Civil Service is concerned, in France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand, pensions automatically follow the same trend as wages and salaries.
The relevancy of all that to our motion is that, since December, 1960, serving members of the Garda Síochána have had their rent allowance constituted as part of their pay and because of that any person who retired from the Garda Síochána since 21st December, 1960, has had a higher pension than anybody who retired prior to that date because the pension is based upon a percentage of pay and where the rent allowance is included as pay, then the pension is automatically increased.
I am glad the Minister for Finance is here today to defend his refusal to accede to representations which have come to him on this matter from all quarters of the country, from all Parties in this House and from his colleague, the Minister for Justice, in particular, who is in the most embarrassing position of realising that it is unjust to refuse the claim and who is passing the buck and blaming the Minister for Finance entirely. One wonders where the theory of collective responsibility comes in where you have one Minister blaming another, where you have one Minister accepting, and going on record as accepting, that an application is just but stating that it will not be granted because his colleague cannot see his way to do it. That is rather shabby, rather unfortunate and grossly unfair to the small number of persons involved.
I want to emphasise that this has nothing to do with the general pattern of pension schemes, no matter what attempt the Minister for Finance may make to suggest that this must be considered together with pensions of all other grades and of all other branches of the public service. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This is purely and simply a case of giving to members of the Garda Síochána who retired prior to a particular date the same rights as their colleagues enjoy who did not reach retiring age until after 21st December, 1960.
Why should this be conceded and why should it not be conceded? The one reason why it should not be conceded is a lengthy one and the only one that I know of that has yet been advanced by the Department of Finance is that you cannot touch one pension without having claims from pensioners in several other fields. But, this claim is one related entirely to what members of the Garda Síochána had while they were members of the Force, that is, a rent allowance. We all must live in houses; we all must have accommodation. Nobody knows that better than the Gardaí. If a Garda finds a person homeless, loitering in a public place, he will have him charged with an offence and brought before the courts and he will be given an abode at the expense of the State. Anybody who is earning a wage is receiving in that wage a certain percentage to provide him with the means of maintaining a roof over his head.
For some years until 1960, in fact, throughout the whole history of the Force, Gardaí were in the peculiar position that they did not have one wage which included rent but received a basic wage and the rent was paid to them as though it were a separate thing. That is why the Department of Finance for several years resisted the application of the Garda to have the rent made part of their complete wage structure. As soon as the Garda were given a scheme of conciliation and arbitration, they renewed their application to have the rent allowance included in their wage and no sooner was the application made than it was granted. If ever there was proof needed that there was justice in the case, it was surely provided when, on arbitration for the first time, it was given to them as soon as they applied for it.
Another interesting thing is that throughout the history of the Force, the Revenue Commissioners who, after all, are one arm of the Department of Finance, have insisted that the rent allowance was part of the wage paid to members of the Garda Síochána and, in fact, this case was tried out in court. There is the case of Garda White against the Inspector of Taxes in 1948. Judge McCarthy, in his judgment on 30th July, 1948, dismissed Garda White's claim on the ground that rent allowance was part of his salary and emoluments.
So, we have the very unfair situation in which the Department of Finance, in which the State, is insisting on the one hand that the rent allowance is part and parcel of the wages because the law so provides and making the Garda pay income tax in respect of that rent allowance and, on the other, when the men reach their retiring age, saying: "No, it was not part of your wages; it was not part of your emoluments and we are not going to take it into consideration for your pension purposes, even though you have been paying income tax on it as part of your wages during your 30 or 40 years' membership of the Force." I do not think there is any Deputy who would maintain for a moment that that is justice.
Another interesting side aspect of the Garda Síochána pay and pensions scheme is this. The Garda are the one branch of the public service who are compelled by law to contribute a certain percentage of their pay for their pensions. Other branches of the public service receive pensions, although they contribute nothing towards them. But, year in, year out, the Guards must pay two and half per cent., or 6d. in every £, towards their pension scheme. Here you have a double injustice. The one branch of the public service who make a definite contribution towards their pension scheme, and thereby save the State the cost of financing the pension scheme to that extent, is the one branch denied for pension purposes that section of income which we all get to meet the cost of housing ourselves and our families.
A very appropriate question is: how much will this cost? Some time ago, I gave a figure in this House which I have since been able to check and I find that I erred on the side of generosity. I said it would cost about £80,000 per annum. Checking the matter more carefully, it seems in this year, were this to be acceded to, it would cost the State about £60,000. Thereafter, year after year, that amount would reduce and not increase. Any men now in the Force or who retired since December, 1960, will get the rent allowance included as a pensionable emolument in any event. The State have accepted that and are paying that; but for the small and contracting band of men who retired prior to 1960 that emolument for pension purposes is denied. But, in time, that number is going to reduce. Nothing is more certain. As we are born, so must we die. These men, who have given of the best years of their lives to the State, will be reduced in numbers as the years pass. Even if the State were to strain itself this year to give it, the State could give it, with the certain knowledge that, unlike most commitments the State undertake, it will not increase as the years go on but rather will it diminish.
Those are the fundamentals which justify the 34 members of the Fine Gael Party in putting down this motion, but there are certain side aspects of it which this House is obliged to consider. I have given the arguments, which simply ask for fair play and no more. There are other reasons why the men who would benefit by the acceptance of this motion are deserving of special consideration. Most, if not all, of them are founder members of the Garda Síochána. No matter what view one might have taken in the civil dispute here 30 or 40 years ago, it can now be accepted by all sides of the House that the setting up of the Garda Síochána as an unarmed force was one of the principal contributing factors in restoring peace to this land.
The men who would benefit to the tune of about £35 a year if this motion is accepted are the men who, when times were difficult and dangerous, put on the blue uniform of the Garda Síochána, now respected and accepted by all sections of the people. It is rather shabby of us to deny to them what we have accepted as being the bare minimum of justice for any men who were lucky enough still to be serving on 21st of December, 1960. Surely justice is not something which begins on one day and should not exist before that?
On that account, I am asking the Minister very earnestly to consider this motion. I know the Minister has been kind enough to receive a deputation from the Garda Síochána Pensioners' Association. He did so last year at a time when he was increasing all State pensions. He indicated, however, he could not see his way at that time to accede to their representations in relation to the rent allowance. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any more money in the till this year. I think it is quite the reverse. I am sure the Minister is regretting he did not do it last year when there was a little more money available.
Strictly, I think the question of the availability of money does not apply in this. The £60,000 is only a tiny drop in the vast ocean of State finances. If the Minister were to give it in this instance, he would not be creating a precedent for any other section of the public service to come looking to have some particular thing included as a pensionable emolument. I am not certain about this—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—but I think there are some other branches of the public service, where civil servants and others are away from their homes for a short period, civil servants who are on duties which necessitate their boarding out, if I may use the word. In some such cases where rent allowances are paid, they are included on occasions as salary. They are brought into a calculation in subsequent years in relation to the pensions to be paid. I may be wrong in that. If I am, it is a stick for the Minister to beat me. If I am right, it is certainly another very strong argument in favour of the adoption of this motion.
I do not wish to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of the rent allowance. I do not think it is strictly relevant to this motion. As a particular reason, however, why we should be a little more generous with these men, I should like to remind the House that most of us are aware that the rent allowance paid—certainly in the city of Dublin—is grossly inadequate and certainly would not provide them even with a Dublin Corporation house, much less any privately-owned house. The rent allowance has not kept pace with the increased costs of rents of houses. It is an indication that the State has been mean to these men, but it should not continue to be mean to them at a time when all the members of the Force who were serving in December, 1960, and since are enjoying the right for which we are now looking for these people.
Our colleagues in the Labour Party have tabled an amendment which, one feels, is mainly for the purpose of going one better than Fine Gael. They ask that, in addition to having the rent allowance treated as a pensionable emolument, as we ask, that right be granted as and from the date on which it was granted to serving members.