asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that, despite his statement in the Budget speech last April that the increase would be granted to the same groups of pensioners for whom he provided an increase last year, Garda widows on the minimum scale have not yet received the five per cent. Increase in pension as from 1st October; and when they may expect to receive it.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pensions of Garda Widows.
5.
Garda widows' pensions are paid at the rate laid down in the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1950, plus the increases granted under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1956-64, but a minimum rate corresponding to the contributory widow's pension under the Social Welfare Acts is paid, if this is more favourable. This minimum rate, currently £111 a year, represents an 88 per cent increase in the pre-1962 Garda widow's pension. Normal increases under the Pension (Increase) Acts, including five per cent from 1st October, 1964, would have given a pension of £78 to the widow of a Garda, an increase of 32? per cent on the pre-1962 rate. As this is less than the minimum pension of £111 the latter continues to be payable without change.
Would the Minister consider the understandable disappointment of this group of pensioners, who believe themselves to be covered by his general declaration of his intent to provide the same increase for all groups of pensioners for whom he provided an increase in the previous year, that they failed to get the five per cent which almost every other group of pensioners in the country received? Would he agree it would be the general view of the House that we are dealing with a very limited group of widows and, even if the granting of five per cent would be a slight departure from the principles now enunciated by the Minister, the House would be prepared to support him?
The position is that these widows were getting the increase provided in the Budget each year up to 1st November, 1963, that is, last year. At that date I decided they should get the contributory widow's pension, which was much higher in many cases, rather than the increase they were entitled to. When it came to this year, then, those who had got the £111 were on a standstill. Going back to the old system of giving them what they had, very few would have done better, and they have got the increase.
While I fully understand the regard had to a whole series of considerations such as the Minister mentioned and while a great many experienced Deputies may understand the complex principles underlying the Minister's decision, would he agree with me that the bulk of these pensioners, not unnaturally, anticipated that the five per cent would be forthcoming for them? It is a very small sum of money; it is a very limited category of persons; it is a diminishing charge and, in consideration of all these matters, perhaps the Minister would consider it again with a view to seeing if anything could be done to meet what, if it is not a grievance, is at least a disappointment?
We were more generous than we promised by anticipating this increase in pensions last year and it is rather too much to expect that we should be, as it were, penalised for that now by having to give more. I should mention one other point that is favourable in regard to this widow's pension. The ordinary person who has a contributory widow's pension cannot get a non-contributory pension, no matter what other means she has. In the case of the Garda widow, although she has got the £111, which is the same as the non-contributory widow's pension, she is entitled to claim a non-contributory pension if her means so permit and I believe that a Garda widow is entitled to a small proportion of a non-contributory widow's pension if she has no other means.
Perhaps over the coming season the Minister might reconsider the matter in the light of Christmas?
I am always prepared to reconsider it but I am afraid nothing more can be done.
6.
asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that as a result of the Pensions Increase Act, 1964, Garda widows receiving increased pensions have been deprived of 15/- per week of their non-contributory widow's pension; and whether he will take steps to amend the Pensions Increase Act, 1964, by inserting a provision similar to that in the Pensions Increase Acts of 1956, 1959 and 1961, to provide that an increase would be regarded as a voluntary or gratuitous payment.
The amount of a non-contributory pension varies according to the pensioner's means which are reckoned in accordance with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts. A Garda widow's pension is reckonable as means under the Acts, which is proper having regard to the fact that the minimum Garda widow's pension is equal to the full contributory widow's pension. By contrast, a widow in receipt of a contributory pension is debarred from receiving any non-contributory pension under the Acts so that the Garda widow is more favourably treated.
With few exceptions, pensions to Garda widows are payable at the same rate, irrespective of the date of the husband's retirement or death. It is therefore appropriate that these pensions should be assessed as a means on a uniform basis, so that the same amount will be reckoned as means irrespective of whether the pension is a new award of minimum pension, or has been raised to that amount by adding pensions increases to a smaller award made some years previously. The sums payable by way of Garda pension and non-contributory pension may vary from time to time because of increases in one or the other, but a pensions increase can never operate to reduce the total income from both pensions. In fact total income has risen substantially in these cases in recent years.
This matter was raised when the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1964, was being enacted and I considered it very fully at that time. I regret that I would not be prepared to amend the Act as suggested by the Deputy.
I think the Minister will sympathise with me when I say that even to understand his answer is not easy for an experienced member of the House because it involves reference to a number of principles governing the pensions code.
Yes.
But, in effect, I have brought to the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare at least one case in which the widow actually finds herself 15/- a week worse off than she was before she got the increase.
It was certainly a mistake, if she is worse off.
May I take it that in any case where the increased pension awarded to a widow has operated to reduce her social welfare pension so as to leave her with a lesser annual income, there is some regulation or provision under which that can be corrected?
Where the mistake was made in previous years, when the pension was not reduced.
I appeal to the Minister for Finance. I understand the complexity of this problem. Surely, none of us meant when we passed the Pensions Act, 1964, that a widow woman in receipt of a pension in respect of her deceased husband would actually find herself 15/- a week worse off than when we passed the 1964 Pensions Act? Nobody meant that.
No.
Very well. Will the Minister agree with me that if that has happened, hopping and trotting between the whole of us, we can find some means of laying down a general principle that no such case will be allowed to continue?
That is the order at the present time.
The Minister for Social Welfare says it is not.
The total income will not be reduced in any case.
It does not happen.
I may take it that if any exceptional case arises in which that appears to be the case, I can rest upon the Minister's assurance that it will be put right?
Yes, it will be put right.
There is not any such case.
I have submitted a case.
I have the case. The Deputy will have a reply today.