Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Dec 1970

Vol. 250 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme, 1970: Motion.

I move:

That the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme, 1970, prepared by the Minister for Defence with the consent of the Minister for Finance under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act, 1932, and Section 4 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1938, and laid before the House on the 11th day of December, 1970, be confirmed.

This scheme amends the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 to 1970, so as to provide improved retirement benefits for certain officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the permanent Defence Force. It also amends the schemes in other respects.

The Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes do not follow a conventional pay-related superannuation pattern. This is because of the particular nature and circumstances of military service, which involve such things as retirement at earlier ages than apply to the public service generally and facilitating officers to retire on pension after relatively short periods of service. A pay-related pensions scheme would have administrative advantages and it may come about later, but there are difficulties for the reason I have mentioned. In the course of an examination of the matter which has been taking place between the civil and military sides of my Department, certain points emerged in regard to which the improvement of the provisions of the schemes seemed desirable. These are now incorporated in the present scheme, and are generally effective as from the 1st June, 1969, the effective date of the pay increases which arose out of the Army pay review.

The officers who hold the highest posts of responsibility in the Defence Forces—the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, the Assistant Chief of Staff and the Officers Commanding the Commands—are paid at the regimental rates appropriate to their ranks and in addition receive responsibility allowances. Hitherto these responsibility allowances have not been reflected in their retired pay. There is already in the schemes a precedent for the inclusion of the allowances for retired pay purposes, in that officers in receipt of additional pay in respect of professional qualifications receive a percentage increase in the normal rate of retired pay—20 per cent in the case of officers of the Army Medical Corps and 10 per cent in other instances. It is proposed to apply this percentage increase to the officers I have mentioned—a 20 per cent increase in the case of officers retiring while holding the appointment of Chief of Staff, Adjutant-General. Quartermaster-General or Assistant Chief of Staff and a 10 per cent increase for Officers Commanding Commands. The necessary provisions are contained in article 5 which also makes provision for some special types of circumstances that may arise.

At present the maximum gratuity which an officer may receive on retirement in addition to retired pay does not reach the maximum of one and a half years pay which applies in the public service generally. On the other hand, officers may retire on maximum retired pay and the present maximum gratuity at ages at which public servants generally would be eligible for neither pensions nor gratuity. It is now proposed, however, that where an officer makes the Army his career and serves to the end. so to speak, he will be eligible, in addition to retired pay. for a maximum gratuity of one and a half years pay. An officer will commence to qualify for an increase in the present gratuity once he is within five years of the retiring age appropriate to him and will be eligible for the full gratuity if he serves up to within two years of retiring age. This is the effect of article 6.

With regard to soldiers, the amending scheme of 1947 provided a pension increment of Is a week in the basic 21-year pension for each year of service over 21 years and not exceeding 31. This increment is now being increased by the average increase in the pay of the various non-commissioned ranks since 1947. The table to article 9 shows the amounts of the increases, which vary with the date of discharge. For soldiers discharged on or after the 1st June, 1969, the increase will apply as from the date of discharge. The effective date of increase for soldiers who were discharged before the 1st June, 1969, and who were not affected by the Army pay review will be the 1st April, 1970. I should emphasise that the amounts shown in the table are additional. For instance, a soldier discharged on or after the 1st January, 1971, with 31 years service will become eligible for a total increment of £3 5s a week in his basic 21-year pension instead of the present 10s—5s 6d multiplied by ten, plus the present 10s. When a man becomes eligible for an old age pension or retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts, he will revert to the lower rate of increment.

It has long been felt that soldiers should be eligible for gratuities in addition to pensions, and article 10 now provides that a married long-service soldier discharged on pension on or after the 1st June, 1969, will receive a gratuity of one week's ordinary pay for each year of service up to a maximum of 31.

A few examples of what these pensions will mean may be of interest to Deputies. A married private leaving the Army after 21 years service, when he might be still only 40 years of age, will be eligible for a pension of £7 18s. 3d a week and gratuity of £467 5s. A married private with 31 years service will be eligible for a pension of £11 3s 3d a week and a gratuity of £689 15s. A married sergeant with 21 years service will be eligible for a pension of £9 Is a week and a gratuity of £554 8s, and a married sergeant with 31 years service will be eligible for a pension of £12 6s a week and a gratuity of £818 8s.

Under the existing schemes, a condition for the payment of an additional married pension to a soldier is that he be in receipt of marriage allowance at the date of discharge. Marriage allowance now being incorporated in the married rate of pay, the married pension will, from the 1st June, 1969, be payable if a soldier was in receipt of the married rate of pay at discharge. It will also be payable to a widower soldier on discharge, as a soldier now retains the married rate of pay if his wife dies. Consequently, the married pension will, in the case of a solider discharged on or after the 1st June, 1969, also be continued if he becomes a widower after leaving the Army.

There are a few other unconnected provisions of the scheme to which I may refer before concluding. Reserve officers called out on full-time service in August, 1969, had their retired pay suspended under article 17 of the principal scheme for the duration of such service. Article 7 of the present scheme revokes article 17 and will thus enable the officers in question to receive their retired pay for the relevant period.

A contributory widows' and orphans' pension scheme operative as from the 23rd July, 1968, is being introduced for the widows and orphans of deceased officers on the same lines as the contributory scheme for the widows and orphans of civil servants and local authority officers. Article 8 provides that the existing non-contributory pensions payable under the scheme to the widows and children of deceased officers will not be payable in cases where the contributory pensions are payable.

Article 12 provides for the reckoning, for pension purposes, of service in the Army Nursing Service before retirement on marriage of a widow who is reappointed to the Service. Any marriage gratuity paid will be deducted from her pay or from her pension on final retirement. The article also provides for the aggregation of separate periods of service in the case of a particular member who resigned for domestic reasons but was subsequently reappointed to the Service.

I feel that Deputies will approve wholeheartedly of the provisions of this scheme, some of which represent a considerable breakthrough. They represent, for the period from the 1st June, 1969, to 31st March, 1971, a cost of £350,000 and an estimated annual cost thereafter, based on current rates, of £230,000.

I got the instrument outlining the scheme only when I came to the House this afternoon and it was not possible for me to examine it critically so that I could comment intelligently on it. We know the scheme was promised a considerable time ago. It is, indeed, a long time since we had the announcement about the improved pensions and gratuities it was hoped to provide. Many of those in the Army to whom this scheme applies felt that they would have got the improved pensions and gratuities long since. From representations made to me I know that much of the money is already spent. I am sure the Minister is well aware of this also. Many of those people have already entered into commitments covering the full amount of the gratuity provided in this scheme. I thought the Minister would have brought in this legislation earlier, but what I and those concerned hope and expect from earlier announcements is that it will be possible for the Minister when he gets a quick passage of this motion through the House—I have no doubt he will get this—to have these gratuities paid before Christmas. The Minister has had representations on the subject. I have put down parliamentary questions about this and I have written to the Minister in individual cases. There are many more cases that I have been able to reply to on the information the Minister gave me in regard to his intentions about the payment of these gratuities. I hope he will not let down these people and will make their Christmas that much happier by ensuring that payment is made before Christmas.

The Minister referred to the date on which it will be possible to make this legislation effective as 2nd June, 1969, a date when rates of pay and salary in the Army were increased generally. Is that a just way to decide the date for improved payment or gratuities? I think of the people who retired the previous week or month; they will live with a grievance for the remainder of their lives. Obviously, there are no improvements for them. This is very sad for people who have given long and valuable service to the country. The Minister may see some way around this. In one of the provisions in the scheme he does meet the case to some extent, but when we consider men who are retired for a long time they do not get anything like the improvements enjoyed by people retiring in 1970 or 1971.

Many of the provisions here represent only justice and the fact that Army personnel were so long deprived of benefits already enjoyed by other people in the public service is a reflection on the Government and may be one reason why it is so hard to keep the Army up to strength. It is a long time since Army strength was at such a low level as it is at present. We find it difficult to recruit for the Army. Anything that can be done to make Army life more attractive or make people give longer service in the Army is to be welcomed by all in this House. Everybody here will welcome improved conditions for those serving in the armed forces.

Provision is made here also for improved pensions and conditions for Army nursing personnel. Heretofore, a nurse who got leave of absence from the Army was regarded as having broken service and did not rank for pension purposes. If such leave is now given to a nurse and if she comes back to the Army this is aggregated with previous service and is eligible for pension purposes.

There is nothing in this with which any of us would disagree. I was absolutely shocked when I first learned that if a man stayed in the Army for longer than 21 years his pension only increased by Is. a year from then on. I know of many experienced soldiers who left the Army because of this and took up jobs in civilian life. Many of those men would have stayed the extra ten years if it made any significant improvement in their pensions. This improves that situation somewhat. If we calculate it on the level of what those men were previously getting, this could be described as an enormous improvement. It has reached a point where it may induce some people to remain on in the Army.

I was shocked to learn only last week that even the normal increases in pay granted to nurses throughout the country several months ago have not yet been given to Army nurses. This is something of which the Minister might take note. It is hard enough to get people when you treat them properly but if this type of neglect goes on over a period of years it is no wonder the Army is not regarded as attractive to many people who would otherwise join and give excellent service.

I am not in a position to say whether those improvements will bring Army pensions and gratuities up to a point where they will compare favourably with similar benefits enjoyed by public servants in civilian life. The Minister referred to the peculiar circumstances of Army life and the fact that it could not be evaluated in the same way as ordinary civilian employment. He told us about the advantages which Army people have of early retirement, but there are many disadvantages in this. I am sure the Minister was not anxious to outline those disadvantages but they can be listed. This provision, however, contains welcome improvements, which are long overdue. I hope the Minister will ensure that they are paid before Christmas.

I want to refer to a case I came across recently which it is hard to believe could happen. I refer to the case of a soldier who was in the battle of Niemba who was retired from the Army on a small disability pension of between £6 and £7. He lived in a wooden hut on the perimeter of this city. I was approached to see if I could possibly do anything for this man who was living in such deplorable housing conditions. It is hard to believe that type of man could be left in that way. I took up his case. I said I could do nothing for him with regard to housing him but I would see if I could get him a job. I succeeded. He was shell-shocked but was able to do a job. There was nobody in the Army to take up this case. I understand a deduction is made in his pension because he gets a disability allowance. This is something this man earned before it came to the time of his pension. This is unfair treatment. The Minister recited the case of a few top-level people in the Army where this sort of thing arose and where he has now introduced in this legislation a provision which will overcome this. I hope he will be able to see a way to deal with a soldier who has been rendered unfit or partially disabled because of his service in the Army, that his disability allowance will not be taken into account and his pension eventually will not be reduced as a result.

I know Deputy Cosgrave, the leader of our party, raised this at Question Time a few days ago. I am sure he may deal with this before we finish here because he is more intimately acquainted with this type of case than I am. This man should have been looked after better by the Army. If we do not look after our people in the Army better than we have been doing we will have no Army. The Minister has a responsibility, which I know he takes seriously, to ensure that not only do we keep the people who are there already but that we increase the number in the Army. We need badly to strengthen the Army and it is up to every Deputy to support any piece of legislation which will improve conditions, whether they be pensions, gratuities or allowances of any sort, in order to make Army life more attractive for more people. I would like to support this amendment scheme which the Minister has had to introduce in order to implement those improvements which are put before us this evening.

I hope the Minister will explain, when replying, why it has taken so long to introduce this amendment scheme. It is becoming more and more the practice of the Government to announce a year ahead improvements which they intend to bring in. They leave people imagining that the following week, the following month or the following couple of months they will enjoy those improvements and benefits which have been announced. The Government live on that for several months and the people are not aware that legislation is necessary to do all this.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share