Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1963

Vol. 199 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - Garda Pensioners' Rent Allowances: Motion.

Mr. Ryan

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.

Mr. Byrne

It is a pity they are not here to move it.

Mr. Ryan

I was about to make that remark but, as always, Deputy Byrne was on the ball. Unfortunately, they are not here to move it. We would certainly like to have it. It is an amendment of another amendment put down originally. We know there is no use asking the Minister for Finance, or the Department of Finance, to create a precedent like paying a pension increase for a period back over two or three years. That might be done for judges for six, eight, nine or ten months, but they certainly will not do it for members of the Garda Síochána, and we do not ask them to do it. Were the Minister to do it, however, it would cost in this year anything up to £200,000 or £250,000 and knowing what we know about the Department of Finance, I know that would not be done. It is better, therefore, to ask for something reasonable, something which a reasonable Minister for Finance might give, rather than ask for something there is no hope of getting. If you ask for something unreasonable, the Minister for Finance will appear to be quite reasonable in refusing it. We have put down our motion in what we think are reasonable and fair terms and it would be most unreasonable of the Minister for Finance to refuse it.

Since I have made reference to the conflicting attitudes of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice, it is desirable that I should put on the records of the House a letter sent on 15th January of this year by the Minister for Justice to the Secretary of the Garda Pensioners Association.

Dear Mr. O'Leary,

With reference to your letter regarding the question of including rent allowance in calculating the pensions of Gardaí who retired prior to December, 1960, I should like to let you know that I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions with the Minister for Finance. I am sorry to say that my representations in this matter have not had the desired result; I am aware that Dr. Ryan has examined the matter very fully, and am satisfied that in all the circumstances there is no alternative to accepting Dr. Ryan's decision that it is not possible to accede to your request at this stage.

As you are probably aware, the position is that the 1962 pensions increases provided that persons who retired before 1st November, 1955 will be brought up to the level of a colleague with similar service and rank who retired on that date. In addition a further 6 per cent. was granted on top of the revised pension. Further, a 6 per cent. increase in pension has also been given to pensioners who retired between 1st November, 1955 and 29th February, 1960. As rent allowances were not consolidated with the pay of the Garda Síochána until 21st December, 1960, the question of giving the pensioners concerned the benefit of the Garda pay revision of that date does not arise under the present method of pensions increase. The matter will, however, come up for review if and when there is a general revision of pensions bringing them up to the level of pensions awarded after December, 1960.

I should like to assure you that the present unfavourable decision was taken only after all aspects of the matter had been examined in full. I am grateful for your appreciation of my efforts on behalf of the Gardaí. While not in a position to accede to your present request, I will ask you to believe that my interest in the welfare of serving members is no greater than that in the welfare of Garda pensioners.

To that letter the Secretary of the Garda Pensioners Association, following the annual general meeting of the association, replied as follows: the letter is addressed to "C. J. Haughey, T.D. Minister for Justice:

A dhuine Uasal,

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 15/1/63 and to inform you the letter was discussed by the Central Committee and at the Annual General Meeting of this Association on the 5th inst., when branch delegates from all over the country were present.

The following resolution was proposed by Denis McCarthy Cork and seconded by P. N. O'Neill Galway and unanimously agreed.

"It is the considered opinion of this meeting that the letter from the Minister dated 15/1/63 treats our claim as an ordinary claim for an increase in pension. This is not in accordance with the facts. Our claim for rents allowance to count for pension purposes was formulated many years ago before the question of pension increases was ever mooted. We call on the Minister for Finance to reconsider his decision and we instruct the new Committee to prepare a fresh memorandum to be sent to the Minister setting out the views of the Association."

The feeling of the meeting was one of keen disappointment that the Minister did not succeed in convincing the Department of Finance of the justice of our claim. We would hope that the Minister would make one more effort as there is a very strong feeling both among serving members and our own members that the Garda are always discriminated against.

The settlement of this comparatively minor claim would we believe help considerably in minimising this feeling of victimisation.

We thank the Minister sincerely for his efforts to date and trust that we are not imposing unduly on his known good will.

There is the issue. It is knit, I think, in these two letters. The Minister for Finance now has to explain why he will not do justice to these men, when the State has acknowledged all down the years, by reason of the laws interpreted by the courts, that rent allowance represents pay; and the State has acknowledged since 1960 that rent allowance should be included as pay. As a consequence of that, men retiring since that date enjoy a higher pension because, week in and week out, they receive a percentage of that rent allowance, a rent allowance which the men who went before them also enjoyed but which formed no part of their pensions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any increase in the cost of living, with any effort to balance what is being received now, or what pensions are being paid to men retiring now compared with those who retired earlier because of differences in salary. It is purely and simply the question of whether or not the rent allowance was part of wages. If so, it should be a pensionable emolument. In the light of that, I ask the Minister to accept the motion.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

In seconding this motion, I add my voice to that of Deputy Ryan. It is unfortunate that a motion such as this should have to be moved in the rather frigid atmosphere of wage freeze talks emanating from the Government. So far as I am concerned, I do not regard this as an appeal to either the charity or generosity of the Minister for Finance or the Government. I regard it simply as a matter of justice which should be settled by the Government. It is quite clear that this motion has the support of the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, and a section at least—an influential section—of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is clear from the letter read out from the Minister for Justice, a letter written only last month, that so far as he is concerned he recognises the merit of this claim. He did not go to any great trouble to conceal the fact that he, as Minister for Justice, a colleague of the Minister for Finance in the Government, was disappointed at the manner in which this claim and his representations had been dealt with by the Minister for Finance. I do not want to be repetitious, but I think it is worth while referring once more to the final paragraph of the letter written by the Minister for Justice to the Honorary Secretary of the Garda Pensioners Association on 15th January last:

With reference to your letter regarding the question of including rent allowance in calculating the pensions of Gardaí who retired prior to December, 1960, I should like to let you know that I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions with the Minister for Finance.

Apparently he was not satisfied with simply mentioning it to the Minister for Finance. He was not satisfied to accept one brush with the Minister for Finance. He insisted on discussing the matter "on a number of occasions with the Minister for Finance."

He continues:

I am sorry to say that my representations in this matter have not had the desired results. I am aware that Dr. Ryan has examined the matter very fully and I am satisfied that in all the circumstances there is no alternative to accepting Dr. Ryan's decision that it is not possible to accede to the request at this stage.

What I want to point out and to emphasise is that the Minister for Justice very carefully avoided saying, in that paragraph or elsewhere, that he agrees for one minute with the decision of the Minister for Finance in this matter. He says he is satisfied that in the circumstances there is no alternative to accepting the decision of the Minister for Finance, the decision which is referred to as being an unfavourable one, but he does not say he agrees with that decision. I think a fair interpretation of this letter and of the situation as it exists at the moment is to say that the Minister for Justice can be counted as supporting the claim— and I say again the legitimate claim— of the Garda Síochána Pensioners Association in this matter.

As Deputy Ryan has pointed out, there is not a whole lot involved but I do not base my appeal to the Minister even on those grounds. I do not care what is involved. It seems to me this is a fair request, very much a matter of justice, a request which should be acceded to by the Minister. I have no doubt whatever that sooner or later this request will be granted, if not by this Government, by the next Government. It will be granted for the simple reason that whether they go into the Division Lobbies or not, it is clear that a very great percentage of the Parties, in fact, the majority of the Parties, and probably a majority of members of this House, support the plea being made in this motion.

Deputy Ryan referred to the position in the Civil Service. I may be open to correction in this, but I believe it to be a fact that if civil servants— and this is a right under the law—are given rent allowances, these rent allowances will be calculated as part of their wages or salaries for pension purposes. It seems to be an eminently just thing that that should be so. As far as the members of the Garda Síochána are concerned, I think it is absolutely true to say that part of their conditions of service is that quarters will be provided for them; they would have to be paid higher wages than those they accept on the condition that quarters will be provided.

If, instead of providing adequate quarters for them, a rent allowance is paid, again it seems to me to be a matter of simple justice that that should be treated as part of their wages. As Deputy Ryan has pointed out it has been held as far as the income tax code is concerned that these allowances are part of their wages and I therefore cannot see how any other decision could be arrived at. That being so, I cannot foresee what answer the Minister has to this motion. I cannot see that there is any reasonable argument for refusing it and I would join with Deputy Ryan and other colleagues in my Party in urging this on the Minister very sincerely as a matter of justice, not as a matter of charity or generosity.

Mr. D. Costello

At the present time and for the past few years, we have been dealing with an annual Budget of over £100,000,000. What is involved here is a sum of about £60,000 which will be decreasing each year. The Minister for Finance has a duty to adjudicate on the various claims in the Exchequer in as fair a way as possible and I presume the only argument that can be made for resisting this motion is that it would not be just in the circumstances of the present time. I submit such an argument cannot stand up to any careful examination. It is quite clear the amount involved is not great. It is not a matter of principle that would have any serious effect on other sectors of the community. It is not a matter which will involve the Exchequer in increasing demands over the years.

On the contrary, what is involved here is an isolated case which will decrease as the years pass. For those reasons, we feel that the justice of the case has been made out—I think, unanswerably made out—and that it should be accepted by the Minister and his Department. I think the evidence makes it quite clear that the Department of Justice regards it as a just claim, that the only matter that has stopped justice being done in this case has been the attitude of the Minister responsible.

The facts given by Deputies Ryan and O'Higgins are incontrovertible. The fact that the present members of the Garda are to obtain this benefit is now recognised. The fact that these allowances which were paid in the past are payable and are regarded now as remuneration is another matter which is incontrovertible. In the circumstances, we believe that this not very large claim is one which, in justice, should be granted. The Minister for Finance has the difficult task of adjudicating on the various claims which come before him, but I think we can undoubtedly say this claim is one which should be granted in justice. I find it hard to visualise any other claim of a like nature which could be turned down. I do not see any harm coming to the Exchequer as a result of its being granted or any repercussions of a serious kind to any other sector of the community.

If it is granted, what will be the result? The pensioners will get an increase of perhaps £35 a year each. In view of the great service these people have given to the country, I do not think that can be regarded in any way as excessive. In view of the fact that the cost of living has been increasing so rapidly, I do not think it could be regarded in any way as a bounty. It seems to me that the benefit which they would get would be, from their point of view, of considerable significance, of considerable help, in tiding them over these difficult times. The Minister may decide this is a matter which he may leave over for consideration later in the light of Budgetary provisions. If this course is adopted, I would urge him to consider the fact that these people have served the country well, that they are not looking for anything that is unreasonable, that they are looking for justice. I would therefore ask him to reconsider his attitude.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The only thing I have to say on this matter is that some time ago I had occasion to thank the Minister for Justice for the courtesy he showed to a deputation which I and some other Fianna Fáil Deputies brought to see him. At that time, he received us courteously and said that he would do his best to examine this matter. I have no doubt that the Minister has considered the problem because we all feel that there is a question of justice involved here. It is a question of justice because the people who have come after these men have succeeded in getting the rent allowance added for pension purposes. I have already sent a number of letters to the Minister on this matter; I have discussed it with him and at all times he has been most sympathetic towards this particular section of the Garda. I have no doubt that he is still considering it sympathetically so that in the near future he will be able to reach a just decision in the matter.

Mr. Ryan

The Deputy will vote with us.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am well able to look after myself.

Mr. Ryan

We will be glad to have you on our side.

Dr. Ryan

Do you want a vote on it?

Mr. Byrne

It would appear from what Deputy Burke has said that we will have a favourable item of news to hear from the Minister in the next half hour or so. If the Minister is as sympathetic as he is claimed to be, there is no doubt that he will concede the reasonable and equitable claim made by the Garda pensioners to have regarded as qualifying for pension purposes the meagre rent allowance which they received in the course of their employment. There is one important fact which I would impress on the Minister—he is Minister for Finance and is not as well versed in the affairs of the Department of Justice as the Minister for Justice—that these men were in the service of the State when Gardaí were poorly remunerated. Surely on that account there is a very grave obligation in equity and justice on the Minister to see to it that in their old age they shall be fairly treated.

Many of the pension schemes under the control of the Minister for Finance for various purposes fairly bristle with anomalies. All of these have the effect of creating a very strong sense of grievance on the part of those pensioners who are the victims of them. A few weeks ago, I was in correspondence with the Minister about such an anomaly and I urge on the Minister that of all the anomalies with which the various pension schemes bristle, none of them is as bad as this decision made by him to treat the Garda rent allowance as not qualifying as remuneration for pension purposes.

The rent allowance is treated as remuneration for tax purposes by the Minister, acting in another capacity, through the Revenue Commissioners. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If the rent allowance is income for tax purposes, it should be treated as qualifying in computing the recipient's pension after retirement. It is a matter of simple justice and equity and it is a grievance which can be remedied by the Minister at very little cost.

If the Minister were in a position to argue that the rent allowance was not a significant matter for serving Gardaí, it might be a different matter but a Garda has no choice in where he has to live. He is liable to be transferred to any part of the country and his rent allowance is of considerable economic significance to him and his family. These are men who have been poorly paid when in the employment of the State, poorly paid by whatever standards you like to take and particularly by the standards on which serving Gardaí are paid at present. They are men who bore the brunt of the agitation for improved conditions and remuneration, an agitation which has resulted in an improvement, very happily, for those young men coming into the service. That must surely increase the obligation on the Minister to see that they are fairly and equitably treated in the years of their retirement.

Mr. W. Murphy

As you are well aware, a Cheann Comhairle, it is seldom I stand up to speak in this House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is nice to see you standing up.

Mr. W. Murphy

However, I consider that when the question of the pensions of the old Gardaí is concerned, it is my duty to speak upon it. When I go back into the past, without wishing in any way to rake up that past, I think this House must remember that it is certainly true to say that it is these men who restored to this country the law and order for which the people were yearning. It was these men, with their little books and pencils, who went out through this country, even at the risk of their lives, and put the Minister for Finance and every other Minister and Deputy here into this House to-night. They made conditions safe when law and order in this country were in abeyance.

In those days, we had no such thing as law and order. The man who came into the local fair to sell his few cattle was not safe in bringing his money home. I saw it happen in my native town of Ennistymon. I hate to dwell on the past because it is something that should never be spoken of in this House, but it is due to those Gardaí that we should remember that perhaps we are sitting here today because they put the law into force as they got it. They blazed the trail, rugged though it was. They made it possible for the Garda of the present time to be recognised throughout the world as the most efficient police force in existence. They are not asking very much and I firmly believe they are entitled to it. They are asking for something that the Gardaí of today walk into. I am not saying anything against the Gardaí of the present day but all this is prepared for them by the men who came before them and made it safe for them to put on uniforms and go out through the country to uphold the law as their predecessors did before them.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to support the motion, being one of the signatories to it. I did not hear what Deputy Murphy said but I feel he was arguing on the same lines as I should like to argue. We are asked to pay tribute to the men who took this country out of chaos and brought about the peace that we enjoy today and brought respect for law and order. I cannot see why a distinction should be drawn between the pre-1960 and the post-1960 men. It is a disgrace. It almost seems as if the Minister had something against them—I hope I am wrong in that—because of the line they adopted in making some of those on the present Government benches toe the line.

Deputy Murphy could say much more about the Garda. When the first Garda station came to Ennistymon— the Deputy does not want me to say this but we must pay due tribute—he was one of the men who housed them and played his part in bringing about law and order.

I feel the Minister is big enough to meet the case made for the men who gave their all, who were prepared to sacrifice even their lives against the gunman, having merely a little bit of boxstick to defend themselves. They brought respect to the Force and they well deserve anything they get from this country. That respect cannot be measured by the paltry sum that can be offered by the Minister and whether he gives it or not, they are entitled to respect.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): I wish to associate myself with the other speakers on this side of the House who advocate the cause of these members of the Garda Síochána. Deputy Murphy put his finger on the real point of the situation when he alluded to the fact that these are the men who helped to establish law and order here at a time when it was dangerous to try to do so. At the time these men came into the police force, there was a tradition of disrespect and dislike for police in general: they were called the “peelers” in the old days and that tradition lingered on, helped possibly—I believe it was helped—by the unfortunate atmosphere prevailing in the early '20's making it exceedingly difficult for these men to do their work and exceedingly risky.

They were the first unarmed police force we had in the country and they had to go out at a time when every second man was able to secure a gun and they had no support in trying to establish law and order. It is a very bad attitude now for the Government to refuse them this concession to meet a demand which will diminish in the natural course of events as the years pass.

Deputy Byrne mentioned a second point which is important, that these men have been paying tax on these rent allowances all through the years. The State saw fit to take tax from them on this money but do not see fit to give them a pension based on it. On these two aspects of the matter, I think the House should support their request.

Dr. Browne

We support the motion. I hope the Minister will find it possible to consider this matter as one of simple abstract justice and not be influenced by or concerned with some of the arguments which were put forward here and which I cannot help feeling have nothing at all to do with any decision that may have been reached. I have no doubt that it is a bad decision but I think it is one of those curious decisions taken from time to time about relatively tiny amounts of money. There is really no comprehensible reason why this decision was taken. As the opening speaker said, the money involved is very little, £60,000, while day after day we discuss different items of Government expenditure running into hundreds of thousands of pounds and sometimes millions. These sums are voted without great difficulty, particularly in matters concerning industry and factory grants of one kind or another.

One of the important points is that this is a diminishing problem, becoming smaller each year for obvious reasons. Therefore, I think the Minister should not feel that he is creating an increasing demand on the Government. I think nobody will doubt that the fact that the Minister for Justice has accepted the proposition that a conciliation board should consider the present position of the Garda—and I imagine he would be favourably disposed to making quite radical alterations in the general conditions of the Garda—concedes the general claim made here that the conditions for the Garda were generally bad and certainly inferior to those in many other countries and certainly could be improved, as I think very likely they will be improved by the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance together.

We are dealing with people who most of us would agree worked in difficult circumstances for indifferent rates of remuneration and they are paying for it now. Many of them are living on grossly inadequate pensions. I know of one person who had something like 30 years' service and is now getting a pension of £8 or £9 a week. If the question of the rent allowances had been taken into consideration for pension purposes, he would be getting about £10. 10. a week. That is not a lot more, but it might make the difference between that man having some sort of reasonable comfort in his retirement or having to live eternally pulling the devil by the tail.

This applies also to members of the Garda who had moved up to the rank of sergeant and held positions of authority in the community. Understandably, they were looked up to in the various areas in which they served from time to time. They are now paid grossly inadequate pensions. For that reason, the Minister should take this opportunity of conceding this small demand. The point was made by other Deputies that the rent allowance was assessed by the Department for the purposes of income tax payments and the allowance was reduced by that amount, and yet when it came to the question of considering it for pension purposes, the rent allowance was not considered eligible.

It seems to me to be an important inconsistency, and one that is not readily explicable, that the concession has already been made by the Department in regard to those who retired after a particular date. It is very difficult to understand why it should be a valid claim in regard to one group of pensioners and invalid in relation to another. I do not understand the rationale of that conclusion. Possibly the Minister may have his own explanation. This is a matter of simple justice and I do not think that extraneous matters from the past are relevant. I do not think they will help the case. The Minister will probably consider it on its merits and I sincerely hope he does.

The Minister should recall the fact that in regard to another section of the particular service in the Department of Justice, we certainly dealt extravagantly generously with the other end of the service, if I may call it that—the judicial end of it. Again, I do not want to introduce controversial considerations but there seems to be a sort of schizo-approach, a two-way approach to this question. One section of the service must have a very high level of remuneration, allowances, pension rates and so on, for one reason or another, to keep them incorruptible, to make them more efficient, or whatever it might be, but that does not appear to apply to what we consider to be an equally important section of the service, the Garda.

Possibly the Department has been cynical in its approach to this question, so far as the Garda are concerned. It is said that eaten bread is soon forgotten. These Gardaí have good service over a long period. They do not appear to be a powerful organisation. They are a diminishing liability. The claim has already been conceded by the Department as a matter of principle in regard to another section of the same body. A relatively tiny sum is involved. I hope the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration and try to make the concession suggested.

Mr. A. Barry

Because it has been suggested that the case being made for these men has a political complexion of some kind, I am inclined to regret that the signatories to the motion all belong to the Party to which I belong. I believe we would get men in every Party in the House to sign this motion. I believe that all Deputies are conscious of how well the Garda have served the country. When the Force was established in 1923, it was established on the very courageous basis that it should be unarmed. I believe that had the Minister been responsible for the establishment of the Force, these men would have behaved exactly as they did for the past 40 years.

We must remember that the historical background was very difficult. In 1923, a policeman was in a position which he is not now in, thank God. The idea of getting these men to rely on the force of law and on moral law, without carrying arms, has brought very satisfactory rewards to us all. These men are of the people, from the people and they served all the people. They gave their services modestly and good humouredly, and they were generally racy of the soil.

Apart from anything else, I think at times it is difficult to recruit men to the Garda Síochána because the rewards are not equal to the rewards that can be obtained by vigorous and fine young men in other walks of life. If that is so, no discouragement should be offered to young men who seek careers in the police force of this country. I suggest that the situation we are trying to redress by this motion is a discouragement. As practically every other speaker has said, the amount involved is very small and the justice of this claim is apparent to all of us who have the slightest knowledge of this case.

Mr. Corish

I hope it is in order for me to move our amendment now.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is quite unprecedented. There have been about ten speakers. The normal procedure is that the amendment would be moved after the motion had been seconded. I would not like to establish a precedent that the full matter for discussion would not come before the House earlier in the proceedings. The nine or ten Deputies who have spoken might have waited for the case to be made for the amendment just as well as the case to be made for the motion.

Mr. Corish

I do not want the Ceann Comhairle to create a precedent and I do not want to infringe any of the rules of the House. We support the motion and we should like to give it our strongest support. The justification for the motion must be evident to the House. I do not want to go back on what has been said by previous speakers but I do not think it would be superfluous to say that we have always regarded the members of the Garda Síochána in the highest possible light and we think that anything the State can give them is only their due.

Too few of us appreciate the magnificent work done by the members of the Garda Síochána in the building up of the State from 1922 to the present time. While we are regarded now as a rather peaceful society, and can be regarded as such and while it might be said that the lot of the Garda Síochána in the enforcement of law and order is not as strenuous as it was, of course the Garda Síochána still have very many onerous tasks imposed upon them, not alone by the Department of Justice but by practically every other Department of State. The duties of the Garda Síochána are not confined to patrolling the streets, enforcing traffic regulations, preventing crime generally. A member of the Garda Síochána at the present time is a functionaire for practically every State Department. In matters affecting the Departments of Social Welfare, Agriculture, Local Government, Finance, Industry and Commerce, he has been given added duties over the years. I cannot say whether or not the Garda object to these duties. I know some of them regard them as very onerous, especially those in small stations down the country.

On the other hand, anything that we can give, especially to those retired members of the Force, will be only their due. I do not want to retrace the internal history of this country since 1922 but we do know that the Garda had their troubles and the type of member we make a plea for today is the man who was recruited in the early '20s, say, right up to the '30s. He, indeed, had a very difficult task. He was a member of a brand-new Force and between one faction in the country and the other, his job was very difficult indeed. It can be said of the Garda that, no matter what Government were in power, whether Cumann na nGaedheal or Fianna Fáil, in those times, each member served the State well. For that reason, we believe that those who retired prior to 21st December, 1960, should be given this addition to their pensions.

I do not think there would be anything unusual in this. I am sure it has already been pointed out in the course of speeches here that rent allowance is included for the purpose of assessing the pension in the case of many local employees and it would not be an unusual step in respect of the Garda. As a matter of fact, from 21st December, 1960, onwards, the case has been admitted in respect of pensions for members of the Garda. The rent allowance is now non-existent and in lieu of it, 25/-, approximately, per week has been added to the salaries of members of the Force. That 25/- per week will be included for the purpose of calculating pensions when members of the Force retire. Therefore, it is only reasonable that we should ask that the rent allowance given down through the years prior to December, 1960, should be included for pension purposes.

I want to say, therefore, without appearing to flog this case—the Minister must be fully conversant with it; he had representations from the Garda Representative Body and he knows their case — that the Labour Party support the motion fully and ask the Minister to make this gesture in respect of members of the Garda who for 25 or 30 years served each Government well and certainly served the country well.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

There is very little left that can be said but I wish to add my voice in support of the claim of members of the Garda who retired prior to December, 1960. The motion asks that the rent allowance paid to them should be treated as a pensionable emolument. In other words, it is claiming for those who retired prior to December, 1960, the same concessions as those who retired since that date now enjoy.

I am one of the younger members of this House but I am speaking on behalf of a generation of men who contributed so much to the foundation of the State. It is a sad state of affairs that this motion had to be tabled at all. Justice and fair play should have seen to it that these men would have got what is their due and what they are justly entitled to.

The large number of Deputies who have signed their names to this motion is an indication of the way in which our Party views this question. I cannot see any reason whatever for differentiating between the men who retired prior to 1960 and the men who retired since that time. I urge the Minister at this late stage to give these men what they are justly entitled to.

Mr. Tully

If this motion proves one thing more than anything else, it is the truth of the old adage that eaten bread is soon forgotten. We are dealing with a group of people who served the State very well over a period of years. Since 1960 it has been conceded that it is right to assess rent allowance as salary but it is not agreed that that should apply retrospectively. It is all right to talk about conditions in the Garda at the present time and to suggest that members of the Force should be treated well. In my opinion, the Garda are deserving of the very best. The present Force are definitely doing their job very well and are entitled to the best. But having said that, we must also admit that, as Deputy Corish said the people for whom we are speaking tonight served the State very well for a period of almost 40 years and were in the Force at a time when it was not a very popular thing to be a member of the Garda Síochána. They are the people who did, in fact, establish the civil law in this State.

Reference has been made by a previous speaker to the manner in which what he described as the other end of the Department of Justice was dealt with. He referred to the judiciary. The treatment of the older Gardaí appears to be again an attempt to prove something which most of us all our lives have been trying to disprove, that is, that there are two races of people in this country, those who have plenty and must get more and those who have very little and who should get as little as can possibly be given to them. This is a time when the Minister should have very little difficulty or hesitation in putting into operation what is asked in the motion.

I am glad so many Fine Gael speakers have supported this motion. Most of us have memories—I am sure the old Garda have memories, too— of the time when the forerunners of that Party thought it fit to halve the allowances the Garda were getting. Perhaps this indicates that the younger people coming into the Party are anxious to right the wrongs then done. It does not matter whether the Garda pensioners are supporters of the Government, Fine Gael or the Labour Party. Many of us speaking here have none of these people in our constituencies and are not interested in them from the political point of view. In common justice, however, they are entitled to the same treatment as the younger members who came after them.

It was established in a court of law here, when Garda White's case came up over income tax, that the rent allowance was in fact part of the salary. Since the Minister for Finance deals with pensions as well as income tax, he should not try to prove that something can be right, when it suits him and his Department, and wrong when it does not suit them. Either it is right that the Garda have to pay income tax on their rent allowances, and therefore get credit for it for pension purposes, or it is wrong—in which case they should not have to pay income tax. The mere fact that the State have now accepted, with effect as from 21st December, 1960, that the rent allowance is part of the salary is sufficient proof that the decision of the court was right and that the Department of Finance must in all justice give credit to the Garda for that rent allowance.

If this rent allowance were something given intermittently, such as travelling expenses, I could understand the attitude, but this is something they had to pay regularly, and something for which they got damn bad value. I have experience of going into some of the quarters for which they were paying £1 a week. How they came out in fit condition to do duty is a mystery to me. There were places, particularly in the country districts, which were, and are, a disgrace to the State. Therefore, the Department of Finance cannot say that the rent allowance was an extra. They were paying for something, and the value they got for it was very doubtful.

If there were not a precedent for this, I could understand the Minister saying: "We just cannot do it," just as the Ceann Comhairle told Deputy Corish that we could not establish a precedent. It is a fact that in outside employment, a rent allowance or lodging allowance is always considered as part of the salary. The question of hospital employees of a local authority immediately comes to mind. A deduction is made for their lodging allowance. In every case it is counted as part of their salary and, when pensions are being assessed they get credit for the rent allowance deducted. In the case of the Garda, as has been stated, in fact they have been credited with this. But it appears that the Department of Finance are trying to tell the House and the Garda that it is all right to look after the young people but that the older fellows who have gone out do not count any longer.

I should not like them to feel that they do not count any longer. I should like them to feel that what they have done for this State is appreciated. We would be doing a great injustice to those men if we did not state here publicly that we believe a very grave injustice has been done to them, and that the Government of the day should attempt to remedy it at once. If the amount involved were a large one, it could possibly be said that there would be difficulty in implementing what we are asking, but the amount is not a large one. In fact, it is so small that the Minister will have very little difficulty in covering it up in the Budget he is now preparing.

The Minister, who is a reasonable man, will appreciate the force of the arguments which have been made here, and I am sure he will decide that the allowances should have been regarded all along as part of the salary. I do not know what way the mind of any man works who can think that something can be right from 21st December, 1960, on and wrong before that date. Can the Minister himself honestly say he thinks that the man who retired on 20th December, 1960 is not as much entitled to credit for the rent allowance as the man who retired on 21st December, 1960? Can he say that the man who retired in the years before 21st December, 1960, is not entitled to have the rent allowance counted as part of his salary and so estimated for pension purposes? If the Minister is able to do that, I would be glad to hear his arguments. If he does not think it right, I should like him to explain why he does not think it is right. If, however, he agrees with the arguments put forward to-night, he should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case is strong enough to say to his officials: "Prepare a case and give these older men credit for what they are entitled to—give them the pension they deserve." If the Minister does that in his Budget, certainly very few voices will be raised against it on that issue. What voices will be raised against it on other issues, the Minister himself might be better able to judge.

Debate adjourned.