Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Hilliard)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Increases in retired pay, pensions and gratuities for or in respect of former members of the Permanent Defence Forces (including the Army Nursing Service) and the Chaplaincy Service are promulgated by Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes which are made under the authority contained in the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act, 1932, as amended. Section 4 of that Act provides that no pension scheme shall come into force until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been confirmed by resolution of each such House.

There are two types of pension increases which can be described as "automatic". The first is an increase related to an increase in remuneration —that is, where the pension bears a proportionate relation to remuneration, so that, when the remuneration is increased, the pension must also be increased. The second is what has come to be known as a "Budgetary" increase—the type of increase, applicable to State pensioners generally, announced by the Minister for Finance in connection with the Budget.

Statutory provision has to be made for such increases in the different pensions codes. As far as the Defence pensions codes are concerned, the practice up to now has been to amend the Military Service Pensions Acts, the Army Pensions Acts, the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Acts and the MacSwiney (Pension) Acts and, as regards retired pay and pensions under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, to introduce new amending schemes to provide for the increases.

These measures take up a certain amount of Parliamentary time, and in the course of the debate on one such amending measure a few years ago—it was the Army Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1954—reference was made in this House to the desirability of simplifying the procedure for promulgating increases of the specific types I have mentioned in the pensions administered by my Department.

The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1964, which enables the Minister for Finance to prescribe such increases by regulation rather than by legislation, is wide enough in its scope to cover a number of the pensions for which the Minister for Defence is responsible, and consequently Budgetary increases in military service pensions, Connaught Rangers pensions, and the pension under the MacSwiney (Pension) Acts are being brought within that particular procedure.

It was hoped to make a similar arrangement for increases in benefits under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, but the machinery of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1964, was not fully adaptable for this purpose. Neither was it possible to cover benefits under the Army Pensions Acts, but I hope in the near future to introduce an amendment of these Acts which will also provide for regulations rather than legislation.

Accordingly, the object of this Bill is to achieve the desired simplification in procedure by providing that a pension scheme which deals with increases in benefits, arising out of increases in service pay or Budgetary increases in public service pensions, will not require confirmation by formal resolution of each House to bring it into force but will come into force as provided in the scheme. Such a scheme would be laid before the House and would not be debated unless a resolution is moved for its annulment.

I should emphasise that this new procedure applies only to the two "automatic" types of increases I have mentioned. Where any other type of change is being made in the schemes the old procedure will be followed—that is to say, the scheme will not come into force until it has been laid before each House and has been confirmed by resolution of each of them.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We very much welcome this Bill on this side of the House. On the debate on the Army Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1964, we suggested it was desirable to simplify the procedure for promulgating increases of the type referred to. I am very glad indeed the Minister has now accepted the suggestion made on that occasion and brought in this Bill. I am a little disappointed that he has not gone further and tried to arrange for increases in benefit under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act so that they could automatically be increased by regulation rather than by legislation. That would be a very commendable thing. I am glad the Minister has said he is considering it. I hope some time in the near future he will be able to implement what he says.

These pensions to which our Defence Forces are entitled are indeed minimum and minimal pensions. I do not think we give to our Defence Forces the pensions they deserve. We are inclined to keep them hidden under a bushel. Only this morning I met an Englishman anxious to visit the House who wanted to know what was going on. I informed him it was a Bill to provide simplification of the payment of pensions to our Defence Forces. He said he had been in Ireland for the past six weeks and thought we had abolished our Army because he had not seen a soldier during all that period. We appear to hide our Army under a bushel. I do not think that is for the benefit of the personnel of the Army or for the esprit de corps or morale of the Army generally. I know this is not the place to discuss that. It is amazing that we have a Defence Force of approximately 6,000 personnel which costs £10 million approximately, but £4 million of that is spent on the administrative side. There is something wrong there. I sincerely hope the same proportion of the amount we vote for pensions will not be absorbed in the same manner.

Mr. James Tully

Of course, we are in favour of the Bill and the Minister was wise in introducing it. It will save himself and the House a lot of trouble. However, I am rather disappointed with the Bill for other reasons. Section 3 of the Bill states:

This Act applies to the following benefits under the Principal Act—

(a) retired pay, pensions and gratuities for or in respect of officers of the Forces,

(b) pensions and gratuities for non-commissioned officers and men of the Forces,

(d) pensions and gratuities for members of the Chaplaincy Service.

I was under the impression that the Minister would avail of the opportunity to try to do something about gratuities for NCOs and men and also for unmarried officers. An opportunity has been lost of doing something I am sure the House would have unanimously agreed with. I also felt he might have availed of the opportunity to deal with a question which is a very sore one with the Army at present, that is, the question of the amount of pension after the 31 years service. I know the Minister is aware of everything pertaining to Army service, but there are a few facts he may not know. I would not have known of them myself, had they not been brought to my attention. With your permission, Sir, I would like to give them briefly to the Minister.

The Defence Forces (Pensions) Act gave authority for the payment of pensions to NCOs and men of the forces after 21 years continuous service. It did not provide for gratuities. The first personnel to whom this would apply would be those finishing in 1949. The Minister knows the reason. In that year, authority was given for the further extension in service of NCOs and privates by two year periods up to a limit of five such periods, ten years, for which pensions would be increased by 1/- per week for each year completed. This brought the total pensionable service up to 31 years. This then would apply to those finishing in 1959. In 1959, a further extension of two years without pension was granted to personnel with certified pre-Truce IRA service. All others, except technicians who could serve until the age of 60, who had completed 31 years had to retire. The result was that trained men still at a relatively early age were made to retire for no other reason than that they had 31 years service. Many of them were a lot better trained than those being recruited. They were good at their job and knew it inside out. For some extraordinary reason, it was decided that not age but service should count and that if you had 31 years service you must go.

This continued up to 1960 when the 31 years service period was shelved and instead the 60 years age limit was substituted. This continues up to the present. This solved a lot of the problem. It meant that age 60 was the retiral age in service. The regulation allowed quite a number to carry on in the Forces but without any increase in pension. In 1966, the Jubilee Year, a further extension in service was granted to personnel who had certified pre-Truce IRA service. In 1967, there was the termination of service of nearly all the long-serving personnel by reason of their having reached the age limit. Most of them, by this time, had completed 43 to 45 years but only with a pension for 31 years, irrespective of rank.

The number affected by this, I understand, is comparatively small. I am sure the Minister can see the merit of the argument I am making. Would he say, even at this late stage, it is possible to introduce some section into the Bill or in legislation which will come at a later stage which will give credit to men who have served 45 years? I do not know any other pensionable job in this country or anywhere else where men are allowed to serve but only given 31 years service out of 45. The pension is not very big—1/- a year for the last ten years. Surely it is awfully small? I want to make it clear, knowing the Minister as I do, that I am not blaming him for the situation that has arisen. This is something that has been handed down, but it is something which has now been brought to his notice and he might take cognisance of it and attempt to rectify it. I am referring to that and the other question of gratuities for NCOs and men.

I do not know whether the Minister realises it or not, but an Army man finishing his service does not easily fit into industrial employment outside. He finds very many people who just do not want to know him if he is looking for a job. For some reason, they feel he cannot do work. I have very personal reasons for asking that these matters be considered. I believe, with Deputy O'Donnell, there is in this country an attempt to try to hide our Army away and say they do not count. The fellows who go to Cyprus are on the radio occasionally and they get a certain amount of credit. When they first returned from the Congo, everybody met them coming home. I saw a group coming home from Cyprus recently. They were marched into a little shed at one side while the ordinary people were allowed into the airport. They were treated as though they were second-class citizens, people who did not count very much.

I spoke to some of them and they said: "We do not want you to do anything about this because it might come back on us." That was shortly after the first of them came home from Cyprus and since then I have not made any comment on it, but I would ask that they be given more consideration than they get at the present time and that an effort be made to try to realise that soldiers are important people even when there is no war on. The one way in which we can show our gratitude for what they are doing is by attending to the two items I have raised—a gratuity for privates and NCOs on termination of service and for the unmarried officers and pension credit for all their service, not just up to 31 years.

Mr. Hilliard

This Bill of course explains itself. It deals with certain specific increases only, and it is confined, as Deputy Tully has pointed out, to the increases arising from the circumstances as outlined in section 3 of this Bill. It does not provide for anything else. I have listened attentively to what Deputy Tully has said in relation to gratuities for NCOs and privates and unmarried officers and the other changes he would wish to see implemented. However, all the matters he raised are proper for consideration for inclusion or otherwise in a pension scheme. This Bill is not a pensions scheme and any of the matters he raised would not be proper to be provided for in a Bill of this nature. However, I shall give due consideration and have been giving consideration to some of the matters Deputy Tully has raised in this connection.

In relation to the criticism of the non-appearance of our armed forces on the streets or in the countryside, there is no attempt whatsoever being made to hide our Army. I have great respect for the armed forces of this country. So has Deputy Tully, Deputy P. O'Donnell who has spoken for Fine Gael, and, I would say, all Deputies. I do not know if anybody in this country regards the members of our armed forces as secondary citizens. I would not in any circumstances think of them as such. I have the highest admiration for men who offer their services in the armed forces of their country, no matter what country they belong to.

I know nothing of the incident which Deputy Tully mentioned regarding the troops coming back from Cyprus. If they were taken aside to some room, there might have been a reason for it, a reason which might not be apparent to the observer at the time. As far as I am concerned, the NCOs and men of the armed force of this country are very well respected by their officers and the men of the force have great respect for the officers.

I do not think there is anything further to say. This Bill is self-explanatory and it will be an improvement in the legislative procedure which enables the payment of pensions under the pensions scheme. There have always been pensions schemes and I am sure there will always be amendments to them. Under this new procedure, Deputies can raise any question they want to raise in connection with a new pensions scheme when it is laid before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 22 Feb 1968