The time remaining for the debate on this motion is 1½ hours.
Private Members' Business. - Increase in RIC Pensions: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That in the opinion of Dáil Éireann the Government should increase the pensions of resigned and dismissed members of the RIC and thus give them "not less generous treatment" as promised and grant them parity with their comrades who continued in the service.—(Deputy MacEoin).
I do not propose to delay the House very long on this motion. The Minister will quite possibly accept the spirit of the motion as he is well aware of the valuable and useful part played by retired and ex-members of the RIC in the struggle for the freedom we now enjoy in this country. Too often jibes and contumely have been heaped on what, in effect, was a vital contribution made by these people. It would be remiss of me not to say that the experience I have gained by investigation of the period shows that in elements of the intelligence work of the 1918 to 1921 period, a contribution completely out of proportion to numbers was made by this organisation that was of invaluable help to the national effort. I feel that the Minister will view this decreasing body of people sympathetically.
I shall not enter into the rights and wrongs of what has been undone over a number of years. I do feel that in the mood of agreement that is being reached in connection with the ninth round of wage increases, in the mood of co-operation being sought between various sections of the community, employers and workers alike, we should seriously think about putting in order some of the houses that can be put in order at no inordinate cost. I would urge on the Minister that he should do all that this motion seeks and if possible a bit more because I do not think anybody can be more aware of the difficult circumstances under which these pensioners are living.
A certain type of grandiose spending being a peculiar facet of Government contemplation at the moment, one feels that one is merely pushing an open door in asking for the consideration asked for by this motion for these retired or pensioned members of the RIC. The amount of money involved is very small. The amount of satisfaction it would give to the people concerned would be immense. The delayed recognition of their more than significant contribution to the cause that gave us the right even to discuss the possibility of increases for them should warrant the Minister's favourable consideration.
I shall not preach on their merit except to say that the Minister will find a spirit of complete unanimity in this House in respect of any attempt he may make to gratify their outstanding claims and give this very limited class a reasonable prospect of being able to exist.
In reference to a point raised by Deputy Collins, I want to say that there is no disputing the fact that those who resigned from the RIC during the struggle here for independence played a very significant part in our fight for freedom and I am sure that nobody on any side of this House wants to denigrate the actions or the efforts of these men at that time. Even though I agree with that, that is not to say that I should accept the motion. The last part of the motion says "and grant them parity with their comrades who continued in the service". I can only say that the Deputy who put down the motion is begging the question.
There are two classes we are dealing with here. There are those who resigned and were dismissed for political reasons during the years roughly from 1919 to 1921 and then there are those who remained on in the force until after the Treaty was signed and who were disbanded by the British Government, I think, early in 1922.
The arguments put up by those who advocate this motion would go to show that we were not as kind to the resigned and dismissed as the British Government were to the disbanded. That is the point I want to deal with in particular. First of all, if we go back to the beginning, we find that the terms of the pensions given by the Irish Government and the British Government were largely the same. There were some slight differences which I shall refer to. The pensions in both cases were based on service and, with certain slight exceptions, a man who resigned in 1919 or 1920 with, say, ten years' service, got practically the same terms as the man who was disbanded by the British Government and who had ten years' service in 1922. So there could be no complaint by the men who went out at that time against the Irish Government at the time in awarding the pensions they did.
There were, as I say, certain slight differences. The biggest difference, I would say, was that those who resigned or were dismissed were not granted a pension if they had not more than three years' service. On the British side, a pension was given for even less than three years' service. The reasons—as far as I can deduce, going back over these papers—why those who had less than three years' service were not granted a pension came from two different angles. I should say perhaps that the Provisional Government at that time set up a committee to examine the claims of those men. The claims were examined by that committee and it made a submission to the then Minister for Finance. I think he accepted the recommendations except that he did not give a pension to anybody with less than three and a half years' service. I suppose every Deputy will know that I had no hand, act or part in it. I do not want to disagree with his ruling.
From one angle, I think the Minister was of the opinion that a person who came into the RIC after Easter Week must or should have known that he was joining a force which was not very favourable to the independence of this country. Secondly, it was argued, from perhaps a more sustainable ground, that a person who was only three or three and a half years in the force was not there so long that he could not fit himself into some other occupation.
We all know that if a person is in an occupation such as a police force, is there for some years and then comes out, he finds it difficult to get an occupation that will suit him. That applies to many other occupations as well as to the police force. A person who is young and who goes in at probably 18 or 19 years of age and who is there only three or four years and then comes out is still young and pliable and can fit himself into nearly any position that is going. Therefore, taking these points of view, there is at least a case to be made for the ruling of the then Minister for Finance that a person with under three and a half years' service could not be considered for a pension.
There was the difference also that if the resigned or dismissed man got a pension from the Irish Government and subsequently went into any Government service, he lost his pension. That was fair enough, in my opinion. If a person had been in the RIC for whatever number of years he might have spent there and came out and got a job in Government service which, from the finance point of view, was as good, I think the Government of the time should not be expected to compensate him for his service in the RIC. His pension would be adjusted afterwards when his service in the Government Department he joined had ceased.
We come across cases even yet where a man joined the Garda and is now retiring. His pension is adjusted in view of the fact that he was entitled to an RIC pension as well as to a pension for service in the Garda Síochána. I have come across some such cases myself. That was fair enough, too.
The third point was that there was some slight difference but, as far as I can investigate it, it was of no material consequence whatever. There was a slight difference in the calculation of the service from the Irish point of view and from the British point of view. These were the differences. As I say, with these differences in mind, the pension was based on the service given by the man, whether he resigned, was dismissed, or was disbanded by the British Government. Therefore, I think we must come to the conclusion that the men who were taken on by the Irish Government were as well treated, on the whole, as those who remained on until the force was disbanded by the British.
One point, perhaps, where we might say it was a bit unfair concerned the men who were not considered for a pension at that time if they had not at least three and a half years' service. In 1934 the position was again reviewed. Another committee or commission was set up at that time. They made a slight alteration in favour of certain applicants: they brought the three and a half years' rule down to three years. Apart from that, I think they made very little change. They considered, I think, the claims of certain men which were rejected in 1922. I am not sure they admitted them but, if they did, it was in a very few cases.
In both these cases the commission which was appointed did not consist of members of this House. I believe the chairman of the first commission was a member of this House, but it was composed of men who would be regarded as neutral. The first commission had representatives of the resigned and dismissed men. The second commission had no representatives. It was composed of a district justice, an accountant and a representative of the Minister for Finance. They made their recommendations and the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance accepted them. Therefore, it must be admitted that, in the early times when these men's cases were considered, they were justly treated— as well treated, indeed, as could be expected for any set of men who had claims on the State.
The question came up again rather acutely in 1950. It was considered at that time that no change should be made. It came up again in the past few years and it comes up again now and it is again considered that no change should be made. Even if I were inclined to agree that the three years' rule was a harsh rule, it would be impossible to go back on it now. Deputies will agree that most of the evidence is almost impossible to procure now. It would be a job that could hardly be tackled now to go back over those cases again.
The Deputy who moved this motion is more interested, I think, in the treatment the present pensioners are getting. Therefore, we have to address ourselves to that point rather than to anything else. Since these pensions were given, the British gave certain increases and so did we in this country. The last increase we gave here brought the pension up to what the pensioner would get if he were in the same position, let us say, as a Garda retiring on 1st March 1960. That certainly is not bad treatment for men who retired so many years back. I think everybody here would have a fair idea—I have not looked for the figure—of the salary of a man retiring in 1922 and that of a man retiring in 1960. If the pension is based on the 1960 salary, he certainly has not any great complaint to make.
As far as parity goes, I have been trying to find out what the disbanded men are getting—those who are being looked after by the British. I have not been able to find out but I know that the increases which were given, so much of an increase here and so much there, over the years have been just as favourable on this side as they are on the British side. If in particular cases our men are not as well treated as those on the British side at least the difference makes no material impact on a man's income. It is quite possible that in some cases also the men who resigned or were dismissed are better treated than those who were disbanded later on.
As I say, I did not find it easy to get figures but I know that the increases given in pensions generally have been as favourable in this country as they have been in Britain and I presume that where these have been applied all round, as generally they are, the position of men who resigned or were dismissed is not very much below those who were disbanded. That is about all I have to say on the matter. In other words, there is no case for this motion because there is no genuine complaint that the parity is not there already. Therefore, there is no necessity for a motion asking for that parity. It does not serve any good purpose for any Deputy to try to persuade a section of the population, such as the men who resigned or were dismissed, that they are badly treated in this country and that if they had remained on in the RIC and had been disbanded by the British they would be better off. I do not think that is the case and certainly it does not serve any good purpose to give the impression that a Government have not lived up to their undertaking which was given to these men in 1919 or 1920. I do not think that the acceptance of this motion would cost the country very much but the acceptance of the motion would imply that we had not treated these men as we should. For that reason I would ask the Dáil to reject the motion.
I would go along with the spirit of the motion but at the same time I am remembering that these men must have been only about 25 years of age—they could not have been any older—when they were dismissed or when they resigned and I do not think that young people should get pensions for life, no matter who they are. I can understand elderly people getting pensions because they might not be able to obtain other employment. They might be ailing. The whole principle of pensions for life for young persons is wrong. Even the members of the IRA should have got a gratuity rather than a pension.
It does not appeal to me that a young man should get a pension for 50 years. If he has got a pension for that long, he has done well. Young men who go into any police force are strapping, healthy men, fairly well educated, who certainly would find no difficulty in obtaining other employment. They must have done well over the years. I differentiate somewhat between the men who were dismissed and those who resigned. Those who were dismissed have some claim although I do not say that they should have a pension for life. They should have got some sort of lump sum. It is argued that the men resigned for the love of Ireland. That is questionable. Many of them may have resigned because they were afraid. After all, as early as 1918 and 1919, they were shooting policemen in Dublin and it does not follow that they resigned for the love of Ireland. However, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not like suggesting what I have suggested but it could be true. As I said, they have done very well if they have had a pension for 45 years.
In regard to this question of pensions and increases generally, I looked up the Dáil Debates and I found that since this Dáil commenced there have been about 20 motions on the Order Paper calling for increases of all sorts.
Some of them were put down by the Deputy himself.
Very few of them but they were very deserving cases.
His were accepted.
I have achieved something.
You voted against your own motion.
When?
When the Government cracked the whip, you did not move it.
The Deputy is wrong. I am moving it tonight or next week.
He is talking about the batch bread.
You people only mouth about the people but I act for them. I spend 80 hours a week working for them. You do not. You are all rich people apart from the income you receive here but I have nothing. Just keep your wisecracks to yourselves.
Will the Deputy speak to the motion?
Yes, Sir, but I was interrupted. You people will bite off more than you can chew.
You cannot be masticated.
I came in the hard way; you were lifted in. I came in the hard way and I can give plenty in return for what I am given. Now I have been put off my speech.
The RIC will not be sorry.
There have been about 20 motions asking for increases for everyone. It is a favourite pastime for people to put down motions of this sort and one follows another. There is no end to them. I would not mind if the people who put them down were sincere or at least helped the Government in some way. It is easy to say "Give the RIC pensioners a few pounds" but that on top of all the others could put a demand on the Exchequer which would run to millions of pounds, even to £15 million or to £20 million from what I have read. When the Government try to balance their Budget there is a mass attack on them on the grounds that people will not give anything away but they will take everything that is given to them. If the Opposition were generous in supporting the Minister for Finance I am sure he would be equally generous. He has the task of getting the money and of having to make enemies in getting it and risk being thrown out of office—which is the whole idea involved. It is all hypocrisy.
At the same time, I am prepared to go along with increases for all those who deserve increases, everyone who gets a pension or a gratuity, and whenever the cost of living is increasing they also should get an increase. I have accepted that principle in motions in the past but there is very little in this motion when you consider that it is a motion involving people who resigned when they were 25 years of age. They must have had a good life since. They are not like old people. If they have had a pension for so long, then I do not think they have any complaint.
I shall say no more. I am not against the spirit of the motion but, at the same time, I think there is no similarity between this particular case and other cases that could be mentioned here. They should be fairly well satisfied. As I said, in a number of cases, it is questionable whether it was for love of Ireland they resigned.
My contribution to this debate will be very brief. I rise to point out that the motion simply asks that the Government should increase the pensions of those who resigned or were dismissed. The people the previous speaker has been talking about, the strapping young men who have made a good living for themselves after running out of the RIC through fear, are not covered by this motion. This motion refers to people who have already justified their action in the eyes of this State. They are the people who have already qualified for the type of pension given to them. The motion simply asks that, since it has been recognised that they did the right thing and were entitled to a pension, they should get now the same type of pension as that to which they would have been entitled had they remained loyal to the Crown. I think the motion is very fair and it is stupid for anyone to try to twist it round and suggest that people, whether they be in Fine Gael, in Labour, or even on the Government benches, bring in motions solely for the purpose of codding somebody. Knowing Deputy MacEoin as I do, I realised he must have felt there was a genuine need for this motion. I did some research into the matter and I am satisfied that this motion was needed.
And the money is needed.
Would Deputy Sherwin keep his speech for the next opportunity he gets of pouring vitriol on somebody? He will not throw vitriol on me. I am too used to his type. I do not want to cross swords with him. I do not want to have anything to do with him, good, bad, or indifferent. Will he keep his remarks to himself or make them to the type of people with whom he is used to dealing? He had his opportunity and he should have made the best of it.
I did make the best of it.
That is debatable. This motion simply asks that those who have already qualified for a pension should get that to which they are justly entitled. It asks for nothing more. I was very young when all this happened but I am satisfied now that those who resigned from the RIC or were dismissed from it resigned from the highest of motives or were dismissed from the basest of motives and are, therefore, entitled to the best this State can give them.
I am, indeed, very grateful to Deputy Tully for putting the case in a nutshell. He has put it clearly and succinctly. The Minister, in apparently refusing the motion, opened a very wide field, a much wider field than my motion envisaged. Those who resigned and who were granted pensions now have a much lower pension than have those who continued to serve. They are in an embarrassing position. Let me be quite clear that there are not ten people in Longford and Westmeath to whom this motion would apply. As far as votes are concerned, there is nothing in it. The suggestion was made that this is a political trick. If this were the only way in which I could get a vote, then God help me—I should be in a bad way.
These people were asked to resign. When they were asked to resign, notwithstanding what the Minister has said and what the Commission found, we did not tell the people we were asking to resign that, if they joined the RIC after 1916, they were not to resign. We put no barrier to or time limit on their service. We asked them to resign and we guaranteed that they would receive no less generous treatment than those who continued to serve. That guarantee was broken when they did not get recognition for even the nine months or the three months they served before the call was made. If a man joined the RIC after we called for resignations, then he was doing something he quite clearly understood; he was joining the enemy forces. Apart from that, our invitation was to resign.
Another section of the RIC did not resign but they sent in notice that they were prepared to resign. Those we told to continue serving. Some of those were dismissed. The Minister says he had nothing to do with the Commission in 1923. That is true. Some were dismissed and some had to leave the RIC over the Border in 1922. They have never got any recognition from that day to this. Had they been serving with us, and for us, and resigned in the ordinary way, they would have got a pension. There is no doubt about that. Because they did not resign, they are now in a very invidious position. They had to flee the Six Counties and come down here. Some of them joined the Civic Guard. It was said that the Free State Government was taking in RIC men into the Civic Guard and the Guards started a mutiny; these men were expelled by their comrades because of propaganda against them. These men have never got justice from that day to this.
This motion simply asks that those who have been placed in this unreasonable position should now be entitled to a pension equivalent to that which they would have had, had they served on. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, when speaking on this motion, did not take the line the Minister has adopted tonight as representing the Government viewpoint. He took me to task. He said I had not prepared my brief, that I had not given the numbers affected, that I had not said what the difference was between what the pensioner here was to get and what the pensioner was to get who had continued to serve. I deliberately avoided that because it is not easy for the ordinary Deputy to ascertain the correct figures. But the Minister for Finance and the Government have machinery to find out exactly. I deliberately refrained from putting down questions to the Minister as to what the pensions payable now are compared with the equivalent pensions for a member of the RIC who continued to serve here.
I am dealing with the case of a person who resigned from or was dismissed from the RIC and was fortunate enough—I use the term deliberately—to be able to remain on in the Civic Guard or in the State service up to the present. When such a person resigns, his pension is based on the service he rendered in the RIC for the two or three years he was there and the service he rendered to the State here. The result is that he is on a much lower pension. In other words, he suffered a grave disadvantage by taking service in the State. If he continued with his full pensionable service, the disparity might not be so great. But take the case of a sergeant in the RIC who had to resign. That man's pension to-day is not the same as an RIC sergeant who entered the force at the same time and continued to serve.
The Minister would be well advised to look at the speech of Deputy Seán Flanagan, a member of his own Party. I am sure Deputy Flanagan has as much information in the matter as I have. He had no hesitation at all in declaring he was in favour of the motion. I pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the Minister was going to accept the motion or not, but he refused to commit the Minister. It is a disappointment to me to hear the Minister say "No" tonight. I feel there is an obligation on every one of us here, no matter on which side he sits, to see to it that that pledge, given and accepted in good faith, will be honoured. The time has come to make sure it is honoured to the full. I do not know how much money it would take to do it.
None.
Listen, if it will take none, why not accept the motion?
Because we have done it already.
Am I to take it, then, I shall have to put down questions to ascertain the exact figures, from both the British Government and from the Minister? It would appear the people who made representations to me and gave me the figures are untruthful. Why would they complain if they had the same advantages? I regret that the Minister should say so bluntly no financial obligation is involved. If that is so, surely the Minister can say he will accept the motion because it will not cost anything? I could understand the Minister rejecting it if he said it was going to cost a great deal of money; I could understand his rejecting it if he said that the advantage to be gained by the persons concerned would be so insignificant as not to be worth the administrative cost of giving it; but that is not the case the Minister made when refusing it. He refused it on the ground that a commission had found that, unless you had three years' service, you were not entitled to a pension. I say that was wrong from the very beginning because we put no limit on the time.
The Minister then said that these people had been generously treated. He went on to make a fairly reasonable argument which is not easy to rebut. He made the case that an RIC man who resigned or was dismissed has approximately the same pension today as a Civic Guard who served all the time and who goes out now on pension. He maintained it was hard to ask an Irish Government to pay a pension to people who did not serve the State over a number of years.
I do not want the Deputy to misunderstand me on that, and I am afraid he does. What I meant was this. I did not say a man who resigned from the RIC at that time with ten years' service will have as good a pension as a Civic Guard with 30 years' service. He would get the same as the man who goes out with ten years' service.
There is a difference there. The case I understood the Minister to make was that if a member of the RIC who joined the Civic Guards went out——
That is right.
——he has the same pension as the Civic Guard who joined in 1922 and who goes out with probably a slight adjustment in favour of the RIC man——
He had longer service, yes.
——because he had longer service. The Minister has something there. But that still does not meet our obligations. He is not to be compared with the Civic Guard going out now but with his opposite number, whether that person lives in Britain or in Ireland, in receipt of an RIC pension from the British Government. That is the man for whom I want parity. The Minister said it would cost nothing. Let us put that to the test by accepting the motion and let us see what it will cost.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 61.
Tá.
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barron, Joseph.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Browne, Michael.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James J.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Keeffe, James.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers :—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Tully; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.