Vol. 216 No. 2
I move:
That it is expedient to authorise such charges on and payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof and such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to modify certain statutory provisions relating to abatement of pensions, gratuities and allowances in respect of public service.
Can the Minister indicate what he expects the cost of the abatement provisions will amount to?
I cannot give the Deputy any information about the long-term cost but, for the immediate year, the cost is ascertainable and amounts to £4,100 this year.
Has the Minister given any further thought to the question of back-dating? There are people who not alone have lost the ninth round status increase but have got bills for as much as £150 out of their present salary. They now find themselves in a much worse position than they were because this is not back-dated. The amount involved is very small. The Minister will appreciate that grave hardship is being caused to individuals because this clause is back-dated only to 1st January.
I have given the matter further thought. I re-affirm my belief that the back-dating of the measure to 1st January of this year gives reasonably good relief to the people who suffer in the way the Deputy has stated. On the last occasion, when the Bill was before the House, I said it was introduced in the latter end of 1964 and that that was one good reason for making it operative from 1st January. It was the farthest back I could go.
The Bill was introduced in December, 1964, to deal with a problem created by a round of increases. When the Bill is enacted, some people will have to refund as much as £150 despite the fact that they had not the ninth round or status increase. I am sure the Minister must understand that this is a great hardship. Maybe £150 is not much to the Minister but it is a lot to the people involved.
Surely those people must have benefited by the increases?
Because of the peculiar machinations of the matter, they have not benefited at all.
I might give the Minister an example. I do not know whether or not it is typical but I think it is reasonably representative. I have particulars of the case of a person who retired from the Army and who was appointed to a position in the State service. This person is married. Since he was appointed, he has been denied the total of £72 a year children's allowances. The twelve per cent cost of living increase which all State officials got from February, 1964, and, in addition, this particular aspect of it, might however be regarded as to some extent in a different position. In addition, he lost the full status increase which applied to all civil servants from January, 1964. The total loss which this man suffered amounted, up to the end of last month, to approximately £675. The retrospection, as the measure stands, would amount to about £240, which would leave him with a net loss of £435. At present, the Department of Defence in this case, and, I understand, in certain other cases, are seeking a return because the person in question was overpaid on account of the status adjustment.
I believe there is a very strong case for making this measure retrospective, in the same way as the 12 per cent or the ninth round was made retrospective. In this particular case, and I understand in other cases, the position is that if the person concerned had remained in the Army he would now be drawing approximately £200-£300 or more than he is drawing at present because of the increased pay which became operative in respect of the rank which he holds. Instead of that, he was appointed to his present position at the very minimum scale. Undoubtedly, anyone who accepted such an appointment accepted it on those terms, but I think it is unfair that the abatement provision should apply in respect of at least the cost of living element of it.
As I mentioned on Second Stage, in some of these cases the persons concerned have not benefited from the seventh, eight or ninth round—at least up to the present they did not benefit from the ninth round. All these were cost of living increases. The status adjustment is probably to some extent a separate matter although it applied to all the personnel affected by it who were either in the Army or the Civil Service. I think there is a strong case for making the measure retrospective to some extent as the increase in respect of the ninth round, or the 12 per cent if you like, was granted in respect of cost of living increase. In view of the comparatively small total sum involved, it does, I think, inflict considerable hardship on a number of ex-Army personnel. To that extent, I should like to urge the Minister to have this matter reconsidered.
As I said on the occasion of the Second Reading, the Army pensions and the problem of their abatement will have to be treated by an amendment of whatever provision there is for the payment of Army pensions, which is non-statutory at the moment. This, as I said the last day, deals with pensions payable as a result of Acts of Parliament. However, I quite appreciate Deputy Cosgrave's point. If the Minister for Defence brings in an amending scheme, it would most likely follow——
It will follow to the letter.
——the retrospection terms of this Bill. The problem will always arise that when you fix a date people will seek to have it put back further still. I suggest to Deputies, assuming they are willing to take all Stages today, that it will be some weeks before we get to the Seanad and that will give me plenty of time to look into hardship cases and see whether yielding the points made will have repercussions not envisaged now. I will have time to examine the result, and I undertake to give it careful study. In regard to an amendment in the Seanad, I shall inform Deputies in advance if I am so disposed.
I should like to say we appreciate the Minister's difficulty and I can understand in any case of retrospection that no matter what date you may fix other people may suggest that it be put further back. I think in a matter of this sort most people would be prepared to settle for the date which applied in respect of the ninth round because a great deal of the difficulty in this particular problem, leaving aside in some cases the earlier rounds, was certainly aggravated by the ninth round. For that reason, I can understand the Minister's position. I should be glad if the Minister would ensure that his colleague, the Minister for Defence, is in line with him when he proceeds to introduce the amending scheme, and that both schemes will be operative from the same date.
I should like to thank the Minister for agreeing to have another look at this. The Minister should go back to the operative date of the ninth round. That is the cause of the whole trouble. If the Minister goes deeply enough into it he will appreciate that there has been great hardship. I do not wish to labour the point but, as far as the former Minister for Finance is concerned, he always acted on it when it was not so good. I am sure the present Minister will act on it if it means giving a little more to former defence officers. I think they are entitled to it and I am sure the Minister will agree with us by the time he is finished considering it.
This matter has been under consideration for well over a year now and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration also. We have been pressing his predecessor right through 1964 and were getting assurances that the matter was under the most favourable consideration but somehow he never got round to it. It is common in normal wage negotiations that when claims are met, even though they may go on for a long time, they are dated back to the time they were originally made. That is not unfair. It is an incentive to people not to take too long with negotiations because they know there will be retrospection involved. In view of that fact, as well as the facts stated by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy James Tully, I think the Minister would be well justified in having another look at it.
I would be glad also if we got it back to January or February, 1964 and we will have to forget about the money some pensioners did not receive. At least we will avoid any question of refunds being made now. That must be avoided at all costs. I think the Minister is doing his best for us and I hope he will stay in as generous a frame of mind as he appears to be in at the moment.
