When we announce improvements in pay, pensions and benefits of any kind we should indicate more or less how long it will take before they can be implemented, and if it requires legislation to be passed in this House that also should be indicated because people are left expecting these improvements soon. They enter into commitments on the strength of it. All of us have had endless representations from disappointed people who require those things and who are waiting for them far too long already. When this sort of thing is on its way in future I hope there will not be the long delays people have had to experience on this occasion. I welcome the amendment scheme.
Committee on Finance. - Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme, 1970: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.
—(Minister for Defence.)
I should say to the Minister that this suggested change is something which some of us on this side of the House have been fighting for for a long time because, not alone did we put down numerous questions, but I put down a motion, which was debated here several years ago, suggesting some of the things which are included in this scheme. I regret it was bitterly opposed by the Government and was beaten, on a vote, by them. The fact that they have now found it possible to do some of the things suggested and, indeed, other things which were not suggested at the time, is a welcome change.
However, I am afraid that the trouble with this measure, as indeed with a lot of other things which the Government start doing, is that it does not go the whole way. In fact, it falls very far short on a number of items. I wonder why, for instance, some effort was not made to give the same as what a civilian who retires would get. The Minister said:
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.
I would suggest to the Minister, without being discourteous, that they are rather flimsy reasons. There is no reason at all that I can see why an effort should not have been made to try to make them pay-related. This would have bad a startling effect on pensions and gratuities.
I have with me a table of pensions which have been given in other services. The local authorities superannuation scheme of 1948, which was amended in 1956, is perhaps the best. There is a recent one which has been agreed on with the public service and the Government Departments. As a matter of fact, it has not been signed yet because the Department of Finance have not seen their way to getting somebody who knew how to sign a document to sign it. This also is an effort to improve matters because it gives a pension and gratuity, with this marked difference, that it does not insist on the person being married.
There has always been a regulation in the Army that to get a gratuity the officer must be married. This is continued and it includes gratuities for private soldiers and NCOs, which we have been looking for for a long time, but again they must be married. Is there any reason why a private soldier, an NCO, or an officer who has aged parents or, perhaps, other responsibilities, such as an invalid brother or sister to look after, should be treated in a different way, having served the same number of years as his married comrades? Is there any reason for that except the fact that by providing that married people only get it a lesser number get it, and automatically all those who are not married are excluded from getting the gratuity, and therefore it is cheaper on the Army. I think this is a mistake and it should be recognised by the State.
There is something else which I find rather peculiar, to put it mildly. The Minister said:
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.
Would the Minister care to comment on why, in addition to the difference in the rates of pay which the officers get, it has been decided to have a difference in the percentage increase? Surely if it was 20 per cent in one case it should have been 20 per cent in the other? I do not grudge what the senior men get, but surely the same thing should apply all round?
I often wonder how the people at Army command level who draw this up think. The Minister said:
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.
Having said earlier on that he did not refer to or comment on the public service, here he comments on the fact that this is not what is done in the public service. The Minister said:
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 pension 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.
Let us leave that for a moment and come to what the Minister is doing for the NCOs and private soldiers:
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——
I assume he has served to the end
——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.
That is 31 weeks pay for the NCO and man and 78 weeks pay for the officer. The Minister might be able to comment upon that because it appears to be the old question of the more you have the more you get. I am sure the retired NCO or man will have a harder job to resettle himself in civilian life after 20 or 30 years in the Army than the retired officer. He certainly will not be able to live on the pension which the Army will give him. Therefore, he will be looking for a job. If he got 18 months pay, as is suggested in the other case, he would find it much easier to get employment because he would have the necessary wherewithal to survive until he got a decent job.
What about the officer, NCO or man who dies in harness? In civilian pension and superannuation schemes provision is made for this. If a man has been in the service of an employer for a reasonable period and then dies, his next-of-kin get one year's pay at a minimum. Perhaps there is provision here but I cannot find it if there is. Do the Army make any provision for a gratuity of a year's pay to be given to the next-of-kin of an officer, NCO or man who dies while serving as a soldier? That is a fair question and I should like to get the answer to it.
The Minister said:
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.
I had a question to the Minister the other day about the officers, NCOs and men who were called out and as a result of being called out suffered very severe financial loss. As I know personally, some of them lost little businesses. They had built up these little businesses since they left the Army and because they could not give them their personal supervision during the period they were called out, they suffered severe financial loss. Officers who had to go out when they were called left their jobs, some in State employment. They had to use their own cars and travel long distances. There was a complete disruption of their whole life.
Some of them who were in State employment got their salaries from the State Department together with their Army pay, but after a few months they got a peremptory summons to return it. An attempt was made to explain that they should not have got it, but is was given to them. They had to pay it back again. Some of them were foolish enough to think they would be paid on the double. They got a very rude shock. Some of them who had suffered financial losses because of being called out had used this money and they found it extremely difficult to pay it back. In one case an officer who was called out—I suppose he would have died anyway—died of a heart attack very shortly after being discharged. His widow had a sum of £488 deducted from her gratuity when she came to claim it. Although she had eight small school going children she still was asked to pay this sum and, when she could not pay it, it was deducted from the amount of money which was due to her. That sort of thing might be all right in certain countries. It is not all right in Christian Ireland. I would ask that this sort of thing be looked at in a different way. The fact that the State owed and still owes money to that woman's late husband, which should have been paid to her, made the matter even worse, money which he was due because of a disruption which had occurred and for which he should have been paid.
I am being severely critical of certain points of this scheme while at the same time admitting that it is a very big improvement on anything that has gone before it. When the Department started to deal with something like this they should have gone the whole way and made a final job of it and not have left loopholes which can be commented on in this way.
I shall quote from page 4 of the Minister's speech:
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.
Would the Minister care to comment on why that has been put in? She has served, she is qualified for a marriage gratuity, she has got married, she has been paid the gratuity. Her husband dies and she re-applies. If she were another person there would be no question of this happening. She is not likely to look for another marriage gratuity but if she goes back she must pay back the marriage gratuity. How is it proposed to deduct it? Will the same thing happen as happened in the case of the widow I mentioned earlier? Will the whole lot be taken out of the first few months salary she earns? Will it be spread over a period? Why not spell it out? I do not think she should have to pay anything back, but if she does have to pay some back let us know how it will be dealt with.
The Minister may have perfect answers to most or all of the matters I have raised. I do not deny that. I have three documents here and, like Deputy Clinton, I only received them when I came into the House. That is not the fault of the Department of Defence. Having gone through them I have commented on them as I found them.
With regard to the Statutory Instrument itself I note that the additional increases are being given as follows:
|
Weekly rate of additional increase in respect of each year of qualifying service in excess of 21 years but not exceeding 31 years |
||||
|
Date of Discharge |
With effect from 1st day of June, 1969 |
With effect from 1st day of April, 1970 |
With effect from 1st day of January 1971 |
With effect |
|
1. Before the 21st day of August, 1965 |
2s. 5d. |
3s. 2d. |
||
|
2. On or after the 21st day of August, 1965 and before the 1st day of June, 1966 |
2s. 6d. |
3s. 2d. |
||
|
3. On or after the 1st day of June, 1966 and before the 1st day of June, 1968 |
2s. 9d. |
3s. 2d. |
||
|
4. On or after the 1st day of June, 1968 and before the 1st day of June, 1969 |
3s. 2d. |
|||
|
5. On or after the 1st day of June, 1969 and before the 1st day of April, 1970 |
4s. 3d. |
|||
|
6. On or after the 1st day of April, 1970 and before the 1st day of January, 1971 |
5s. 0d. |
|||
|
7. On or after the 1st day of |
||||
|
January, 1971 |
5s. 6d. |
Perhaps this is not an intelligent question but I am sure the Minister will let me have an answer. Where did these dates come from? How are these dates related? Why were those particular dates picked out? I am sure it will confuse the retired men who will get this just as much as it is confusing me. I cannot understand it and I would be glad if the Minister would explain it. There is something else in this Statutory Instrument to which I object very much. It reads:
An increase payable by virtue of this Article shall cease to be payable when a soldier reaches the age of 70 years or becomes otherwise entitled to a retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1970, as amended.
Is that not a great social charter for the Department of Defence? This is what we objected to in regard to CIE and the GNR over the years. Give the fellows a few bob and when they reach 70 years of age they will not be eating so much so take it back off them again. Why should anybody in the year 1970 decide that that sort of thing must still be included? It is very neatly worded, because it says:
... when a soldier reaches the age of 70 years or becomes otherwise entitled to a retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts.
Whether he gets the pension or not, when he reaches 70 he loses it! As bad as CIE were, they only took the pension back when it had been paid. The extra 6s. 8d. which made a pension of 13s. 4d. for the retired CIE men was taken back if they got the pension. The Minister will do it whether they get the pension or not. This is a mistake.
I know there must be a date of operation for all these, and there is probably a good reason for the dates that have been picked, but Deputy Clinton referred to the people who retired before a certain date. It is hard luck on men who have given long service in the Army and retired a couple of days before the scheme of gratuities came into operation. I have in mind a man who spent 27 years in the Army and finished up as a Quartermaster Sergeant. He retired a few days before this came into operation. Therefore this gratuity is out for him. I am not suggesting to the Minister that he should go back to the day when the first soldier retired. Perhaps I should because in my opinion this should have applied all along, and therefore it would be quite consistent for me to say that. However, I feel that could not be done. But the Minister could have gone back a little further than he has gone. I think 1st June, 1969, is the date which is given here and that is not long enough.
I want to refer to the number of years service which a man can have and for which he will get a pension. Originally it was 21 years and after that up to 30 years he got a shilling per week per year. It has now been changed and it is a big improvement, but why stop at 31 years? If there was time I would, and possibly I will, Le cunamh Dé, in the next session, put down a question to find out how many serving soldiers there are with more than 31 years service. If the Minister is saving a lot of money by this perhaps he could justify it, but in my book a man who serves 32, 33 or 34 years is just as good a man if he is there when he is required as if he served under 31 years. Why include those little things which spoil something that is reasonably good? It is like the story of the cow that gives the bucket of milk and then kicks it. It seems to be the same type of idea. I know of one old man who served for 35 years. If he were alive today his 31 years would count but the last four would not. I am quite sure that he would be puzzled, as I am, to know if he was any worse for the last four years than for the other 31.
I am glad this improvement has been put in and I would ask the Minister, whenever he is making a change again —and let that not be too long—to include married and single personnel. He should not confine it to married people. There are many people who are treated in this way by the income tax authorities, by the Department of Social Welfare and now by the Department of Defence. If you are single you have no responsibilities. This is entirely wrong. I know many single people who have much bigger responsibilities than married people because of ill or aged parents, brothers or sisters, and who are trying to keep the family together even though they are not married. Because these people are doing this they are keeping these aged or ill people out of county homes and out of places like that. They are doing more than their share for the State and the State is repaying them by saying: "Well, you are not married and therefore you do not count."
This arises particularly in regard to social welfare and the Department of Defence should not have followed this lead. They should have said: "If you are giving a gratuity, give it to all those people." Let me say, as one who served in the Army, that I did not see many single persons after ten, 15 or 20 years. At that stage nearly all soldiers are married. Therefore the amount of money being saved is relatively small. I feel that this is a disservice.
The Army is something of which we should all be proud. I repeat what I said before, that we have a tendency in this country as in other countries only to realise that soldiers are important and should be respected when there is an emergency or when there is a likelihood of requiring their services. Then they are important people and everybody makes way for them. At other times they are people in uniform and therefore they are just not up to the mark. That attitude should be killed and the more the Department of Defence can do to raise the status of the Army the better job they will be doing for the soldier. I would like to see our Army well paid, well drilled and well dressed and when men come to retire they should get a good gratuity and pension from the State which most of them have served so well and for so long.
This scheme is a move in the right direction. The only general comment I would make is that it is encouraging to see that at last there is a move towards treating the Army on the same basis as other servants of the State. Deputy Tully raised a number of points which are well worth raising. I do not know what the answers to them are because, like him, I cannot say that I have all the information that is required. This document like all schemes emanating from, in effect, the Department of Finance, is rather difficult to interpret and needs a great deal of correlation with similar documents relating to other parts of the public service. For that reason I hesitate to make direct criticisms.
To take up a couple of points to which Deputy Tully has referred; there is this question of the soldier reaching the age of 70 years. The document states:
an increase payable by virtue of this article shall cease to be payable when the soldier reaches the age of 70 years or becomes otherwise entitled to a retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1970, as amended.
Now, at first glance one can see the logic and the rationale of this. To me it means that at that stage, but for this section, the soldier who has a pension would under these other Acts —since he is a civilian at this stage— get automatically the additional benefits of the old age pension, for instance. Am I right in that?
But it does say whether he gets the pension or not.
Yes, that was the third point to which I was coming. In fairness to the people who drafted this or were concerned with it, we must concede that there is a point, if there was to be an automatic increase from another direction at the age of 70 for that retired solider; but granting that there is, is this provision justified? To answer that question I suggest the three following points might be adverted to. On the merits, here is a man who has given service to the State in a not too exalted but rather important service, for which he was not overpaid. Therefore, whatever he is getting will not be very great. Is there any reason in equity why he should not, even at that age, obtain the benefit, particularly in the case of the private soldier? If there was a question of big sums coming in at another level, but then I do not think there are, there would be means tests unless they were contributory. I think that is a fair statement. If the scheme was contributory there would of course be no deductions, but if it were non-contributory it would be at a low level. Therefore, should we not face it: if the man does get a little extra benefit at 70 why should he not get it?
My first point then is, on the merits, might it not be wise and just to let the matter take its course with the individual case? After all, there will not be such a lot involved. I do not think the numbers involved will break the State. My second point I will put in the form of a question because of my lack of information. Indeed, I should like again to advert to Committees of the House at which Deputies could study these things in depth and in detail and which would make their work more constructive. I made this point on the Transport Bill and I will make it at every available opportunity. In the absence of detailed information I cannot be dogmatic. The question I want to ask is: is this on a par with the rest of the State service? Are we acting here on a par with the Civil Service, with any other branch of the State service? If we are, I am content; but if there is discrimination I am not content. I should like the Minister to answer that question.
In the past—and many years ago I was able to quote chapter and verse for this statement—there was a tendency to cheesepare, if I may call it such. I am not dismissing prudent economy and I am not asking for the impossible but where the Army was concerned there was a tendency for cutbacks.
It is still there.
It is a pity. It has been there for a long time.
I welcome the order because it is moving in this direction. It would be wrong to say it is anything other than a great improvement and I compliment the Minister on this. I am very glad that this Minister is able to begin his term of office with a constructive approach to some of the Army's problems. Nevertheless, I want to press the point made in the Minister's speech, where he says:
... 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.
would ask here that the principle which rules on all these matters be made uniform so that a soldier of any rank, a member of the Garda Síochána of any rank, a State teacher and a local authority officer be treated the same.
If we are moving into a socialistic age, where the State is going to set patterns and organise things, let us have a uniform pattern. All I am asking here is that the Army be treated pari passu with the rest of the service and then I shall be content. There will have to be differentiations with regard to the nature of the service, pay and length of service, but the principles governing pensions, general remuneration and so forth should be uniform.
The principles touching widows and dependants should be on a uniform scheme. I welcome this provision as a move in that direction. I take this opportunity to urge that this principle be pursued to its logical conclusion. I want to emphasise that I am not saying this in a critical spirit; it is in a spirit of satisfaction that these views are now being made.
I agree with Deputy Tully that the lower paid have to be looked after because there is a survival limit. I would place that survival limit much higher than Deputy Tully. In his criticism of the treatment of officers holding the rank of Chief of Staff, Adjutant General, Quartermaster General and Officers Commanding Commands, there is a definite point in regard to rank to be made here. Deputy Tully failed to appreciate, although I am sure he will when I put the point to him, that normally the officers appointed to these ranks get no promotion in rank. In the British Army and bigger armies like that an officer promoted to such a post would also have a rank promotion. What happens in our Army is that a Colonel takes a higher appointment with much more responsibility, without getting any increase in rank, he merely gets responsibility pay.
In the thirties there were three Major General Officers in the Army and the rest were Colonels. In a sense two of the three Major Generals were supernumerary in that they had carried on from ranks held in an earlier period. During the war there were still three Generals although not the same three, and the rank of Chief of Staff during the war was put up to that of Lieutenant General and two Major Generals commanded the Divisions. Since the war the situation has varied but at the present moment, if my memory serves me right, there is only one General. The post of Adjutant General, Quartermaster General and General Officers commanding the commands are held by Colonels. We have no Brigadier rank but it would probably be appropriate to the commands. A case could be made for the rank of Major General for the Adjutant General and Quartermaster General and the Assistant Chief of Staff but that has not happened. What I am saying is that a man who is put into those posts is in effect promoted without getting a promotion of rank.
Would the Deputy not agree that it would be better to pay him more equitably to do the job and relate his pension to what he was getting when he retired rather than give him 10 per cent or 20 per cent?
I do not agree with the Deputy, but he is putting his finger on a difficulty. Supposing a Colonel is made Adjutant General today and carries on in that capacity for a period of years and then reverts back to another position, and that kind of thing can happen——
That is provided for.
Is it provided for in this scheme?
Yes.
I have overlooked that. I was going to make the point if in fact it had not been provided for in this scheme. This is a promotion but there is no increase of rank going with it. It is defensible to include such a provision. Obviously, I disagree with Deputy Tully. I do so on the grounds that it should have been a promotion in rank.
I believe in a rate for the job and I apply a pension afterwards.
There is a little more than the rate for the job in an Army command. Deputy Tully is oversimplifying the matter. This is one of the great difficulties in Deputy Tully's approach to remuneration: the rate for the job. I know I am straying from this Estimate, but I cannot resist the temptation of saying to Deputy Tully that I would go the whole way with him if every single man was treated the same and there were no differentiations, but unfortunately we are not all the same and certain elasticity is necessary. The community benefits from those who have more to give to it, just as the community loses by carrying those who have not enough to give to it. With that qualification I will accept Deputy Tully's contention of a rate for the job, but we are entering into the area of what one might call higher status for executive responsibility, not only in the Civil Service but in all human activity. It is somewhat outside the scope of this debate.
But this is one field in which they do not get the job for which they are qualified.
And, when they do, they have added responsibilities.
And they should be paid for them.
This is not the Estimate for the Department of Defence and I should not seek to enlarge the debate. Neither should I cloud the fact that this scheme is a great improvement. It is to be welcomed and I heartily congratulate the Minister on it.
I join with Deputy Tully—perhaps to his surprise—in his argument in regard to a widow coming back to the Army Nursing Service. There are not that many widows. If a widow gets a gratuity when she leaves the service why take that back from her if she returns? It may be that a change in this condition might affect the entire public service and so I shall content myself with merely joining with Deputy Tully in raising the matter.
Deputy Tully spoke about the importance of the Army and how the Defence Forces are neglected in peacetime and petted when they are needed. All I say on that is let us make sure that, when they are needed, they will be there fit for the task for which they are needed. In the last emergency we were in a parlous position at the beginning. We got by largely because we were providentially saved from involvement in the war. That is something for which the country should be grateful. Had we not the time and that providential protection I shudder to think what would have been the fate of this country in 1939 and 1940. Every single penny that had been spent on the Army in the previous years would have gone down the drain. We are spending money on the Army now. We must ensure that that money is well and properly spent for the purpose for which it is provided, and that purpose is to ensure that the Army is in good shape. Adopting the principle I have outlined of treating the whole Army on the same basis as a public service will be very beneficial to morale and I hope that we are initiating now something which will be pursued in the future.
Giving gratuities to NCOs and men has been something we have advocated for a long time. It is. I think, a criticism of the attitude adopted over the years that it is only now this is being done. I qualify my approval of the scheme by endorsing the comments that have been made in the course of the debate.
Some time ago in a Budget Statement the principle of pension based on pay at retirement was accepted. That principle always applied in superannuation schemes in the past but, when it was originally adopted, the cost of living was stable and money held its value. At the time the statement was made the Minister for Finance accepted that the aim should be to bring pensioners who had retired earlier up to those who were retiring in the current year. That was accepted as the principle to be aimed at and it was understood that steps would be taken to implement it by amending legislation or schemes.
Many pension increase Acts have been passed here over the years since the war giving increases to different categories of public service pensioners. In almost all cases pensioners who had retired in earlier years were brought up to the current rate of pension but the gap in some cases has not been closed. Because of the fall in the value of money we have always advocated that pensions should be related to pay at the current rate. That has been the aim in recent years in a number of European countries.
This scheme introduces a number of improvements, but there are still defects in it, relatively small defects when the aggregate sum is considered but of considerable significance to those concerned. I want, first of all, to deal with the limiting of the gratuity to one week's pay for every year of service up to a maximum of 31 years. The effect of that will be that a number of soldiers who might serve on their full term—is it nine years?—will be lost to the Army. They are experienced, trained personnel and it is illogical— and, I believe, bad nationally—to allow people of their experience to retire after 31 years instead of giving them some inducement to serve an extra nine years.
The proposed gratuity makes no differentiation between senior NCOs, other NCOs and soldiers. The position of a sergeant major is a pivotal one. Sergeant majors have long been regarded as the backbone of an army. In fact, all NCOs play a most significant part. The number of sergeant majors or company sergeants is relatively small. They are persons of skill and experience and there is a strong case for giving them some higher rate of gratuity as compared with those given to men who do not attain that rank.
The other defect in this is that it is not based on the same scheme as applicable to the public services generally. It is an improvement in some cases but, as I understand it, if an officer dies, his widow gets a gratuity based on nine months salary of the officer whereas, in the Civil Service, a widow gets a gratuity of a full year's service. Why introduce this? It is time the Army asserted itself. It is one of the reasons why I and others here have advocated a special commission to inquire into Army pay and conditions, comparable to the Conroy Commission that dealt with the Garda. I am an unrepentant advocate of proper treatment for the Army and the Garda. I join with other Deputies who have expressed their support of this because I believe we have never sufficiently recognised the contribution which the Army and the Garda make to the welfare of the people generally. It is, of course, always recognised in a time of stress or emergency, say, when some difficulty arises—not necessarily of a military character. Some years ago—indeed, it was around this time of the year—there was very serious flooding in the Shannon and other areas. Our Army did magnificent work by way of rescuing people, bringing supplies, and so on, which was outside their normal scope: it demonstrates the contribution they make in other than a military sense. The amount involved here is relatively small. There should be no differentiation, in terms of gratuity, between widows of ex-Army personnel—widows of officers or men—and widows of civil servants.
There are certain other anomalies but, because of the short time which we have had to examine it, it was not possible for me, or for other Deputies, to go into it all. As the scheme is drafted, an officer is entitled to a full gratuity provided he serves to within two years of his retirement or a graded gratuity to within five years of retirement. A case has been brought to my notice concerning two officers of the same rank: one will shortly retire at 58 years of age after 30 years service; he will get the full gratuity. His fellow officer, who is 50 years of age, has 32 years service—two years of service longer—but, because he is not within five years of the age of retirement for the rank, he will not get the full gratuity. This is an anomaly that should not exist.
I come now to this question of special percentage increases for designated ranks. I think nobody begrudes the people concerned the increases but there should not be a different rate of increase for special appointments and a lower rate for others. The picture as presented here does not accurately tell the full story. As the scheme is drafted, the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Assistant Chief of Staff get a 20 per cent increase: it says. the same as the medical corps. The officers in other corps get a 10 per cent increase. This has always been a bone of contention with other corps. They have argued that, because of their technical and special qualifications, they are entitled to the same treatment. The only reason the medical corps get it is that not merely had they to fight for it but they had to bring a test case against the Minister for Finance about 25 years ago. That is what established the preferential treatment for the medical corps. Otherwise, they would not get it. They had to force it. I think I am right in saying that the case had to go to the Supreme Court before the Minister for Finance was compelled by a Supreme Court decision to give this. The medical corps took a test case because of an earlier arrangement, succeeded in it, and, since then, that has operated. This should not be the case, first of all, because they fought for what they were entitled to get and eventually extracted it. The same treatment should be meted out to all. If one is entitled to 20 per cent they should all get 20 per cent.
The other matter to which I wish to refer here is what was referred to earlier and that is the abatement of pensions. This, again, is a legacy from another era altogether. It cannot be justified. What makes it worse is that, in the case of an ex-Army person who has a service pension and a disability pension, his service pension is abated. A number of abatements have been substantially reduced over the years. In certain cases, I think abatement has been wined out altogether. This is an inequitable proposal from any point of view. An officer or a soldier earns a service pension. He is entitled to that because of his Army service and, depending on retirement and length of service, it is a fixed pension which he has earned because of his service. Because, during his Army service, he incurs a disability—mainly, in the past, the usual case was that they contracted TB because of exposure to weather or something else—during the Emergency or, in more recent times, because of service elsewhere, he is granted a disability pension. The pension awarded in that case is awarded by a medical board because of disability contracted during Army service. It varies with the amount of disability and is graded according to the appropriate disability rate.
The service pension on the one hand and the disability pension on the other hand are awarded because of service and disability or possibly accident. There is no justification for abatement. I am convinced a large sum of money cannot be involved in this. I believe that this abatement should be looked into again carefully to see that the anomaly is wiped out.
The personnel who will benefit under this amendment will benefit considerably compared with their fellow soldiers or officers, who retired at an earlier date. I have here a figure in respect of a person who retired at the rank of commandant. His gratuity was £1,360. Now, a commandant who retires will get a gratuity of £3,000. It is disproportionate in the case of soldiers. Then there is this anomaly that I mentioned of two officers in the same rank, one of whom is longer in the Army, but, because he is younger, he will get a lower rate of gratuity.
My final point is one which I think the Minister should discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government. It concerns the procedure under which pension is deducted from married personnel who overhold a married quarter. This is a most unfair deduction. I sympathise fully with, and understand, the Minister's difficulty. There should, however, be some reasonable approach to this. In most cases, the married personnel who are overholding married quarters apply for and have their names down for housing with the appropriate local authority. Many of them apply to Dublin Corporation if serving in Dublin; some apply to the local authority where they originally lived or some apply to the local authority in the command area where they are stationed. In nearly all cases they are people who are married for a number of years and some of the family will have reached adult stage, married and gone away. Because of their age, obviously they will not have any more children and because of the small number in the family, in some cases only husband and wife, they are not eligible to be rehoused by the local authority or, if eligible, not on a priority list. It is entirely unfair and improper to make a deduction from such a man's gratuity or to withhold pay emoluments, as is done or, worse still, if they are denied consideration for State jobs because they are in this position. This is a considerable hardship on the people concerned and some consideration should be given to it in consultation with the Minister for Local Government.
This scheme is an improvement. I have been advocating payment of a gratuity to NCOs and men for years. I agree with Deputy Clinton and Deputy Tully that there is no justification for differentiating between a married and a single man. The enactment of this measure will remove some grievances which many of these people have held for a long time. I hope that once this is passed—it is only dated 11th inst and I think it was circulated only today and it has not been possible to examine all the points in it—there will be no delay in getting pay orders issued to those entitled to them in time for Christmas.
I should like to record my appreciation of the performance of our armed forces. I have observed them at home and in foreign lands and, since their conduct has been mentioned in this debate, I can say that nothing I could do as Minister would be good enough for our forces.
I appreciate the comments and observations of the different speakers. The scheme has been very well received. A certain amount of criticism is inevitable but generally it is clearly accepted that this is a wonderful advance in Army conditions which is welcomed by all sides of the House.
Deputy Clinton mentioned early payments. I hope the gratuity cheques will be issued this side of Christmas. That is the intention of the Department and we shall make every effort to ensure that this will be done. Despite the comprehensive nature of this scheme we concede that there are some aspects that could be improved on. Deputies have commented on the operative date for pensions and said they should be brought back to take in the hardluck cases of those who retired prior to the operative dates. There had to be a beginning and a fair attempt was made to be as retrospective as possible and cover the situation in a satisfactory way. This was done by making the retrospection date the same as that of the Army pay review, that is, 1st June, 1969.
I shall try to cover some of the points raised in the debate. The matter of different dates for the increase in pensions was raised. These are tied to the dates of various pay increases
Deputy Clinton mentioned the Army Nursing Service and commented favourably on the fact that service for reappointed personnel is being aggregated with previous service for pension purposes. Deputy Cosgrave referred to the undesirable feature of abatement, but this runs across the whole line of public service in general and at this stage it is not possible for me to change the position. The matter of differential in responsibility allowance, that is the 20 per cent increase in the case of the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Assistant Chief of Staff and a 10 per cent increase for Officers Commanding Commands, was widely mentioned. It must be seen that benefits are made in terms of degrees of responsibility. It is reasonable to give the men with the higher responsibility the higher percentage increase and that principle has been applied in this case.
We are not saying they should not get it but that they should all get it.
There are things we would like to do and things that could not possibly be done. It was also suggested that unmarried personnel should get the same gratuity as married personnel. The whole purpose of the gratuity is to help retiring officers and men to set up homes for themselves. While we would still like to extend the gratuity to single men and officers we consider that we have gone a long way by providing for married personnel. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall be able to alter the scheme to include single officers and men.
The Minister is not serious when he says the gratuity is for the purpose of providing homes? With the exception of a very small number in married quarters, surely all of them have homes after 21 years in the Army?
They have the problem of re-establishment of homes and it is only proper that they should get whatever benefit is possible within the limits of costs.
The question of the curtailment of pension when the recipient reaches the age of 70 was also mentioned. While I should personally like to allow the full pension, it must be realised that all serving Army men are covered by the Social Welfare Acts and will qualify for a contributory pension which is partly paid for by the State and it is because of this that the principle of reducing Army pensions on the attainment of old age pensions comes into play.
It does not apply to the retirement allowance at 65.
On attainment of old age pension at age of 70.
The Minister knows what I am referring to. If the man is 65 to 70 years he gets the same amount so it does not apply, but it applies at 70 years whether he is getting the pension or not.
Would the Minister deal with the case of overholding raised by Deputy Cosgrave? All of us have had representations from those people because portion of their pension or gratuity is withheld.
The question of overholding has been raised in a number of Dáil questions from time to time. Deputies must appreciate that while we would not wish to take measures for taking over our housing it must be conceded that we have to provide houses for our married personnel and we have relieved local authorities where possible, in providing houses for such personnel. Nevertheless it is not unreasonable that when a man retires he should vacate his quarters and make it available for people who are in the service. We have been reasonable in regard to this.
Surely the State have a responsibility for those men who have given long service?
While I sympathise with that point of view, we have a responsibility to our serving men.
How much a week do you deduct?
It is not too great. Deputy Cosgrave was sympathetic to this point. He saw clearly that we had to recover our property and make it available to our serving personnel. I do not think we can make a great deal out of that point.
Would they be paid a gratuity in full apart from the pension?
This is a point which is under consideration.
Will they be paid the full gratuity less whatever weekly rent is deducted?
Yes.
What about the nurses who rejoin the nursing service? Why are you taking money back off them? There is a principle in that.
There is, but at the same time we have introduced a concession by way of the aggregation of their service for pension purposes. What we are doing is not unreasonable by way of deduction of gratuity. The nurses can pay back the money gradually. They can pay it back on easy terms.
They might consider unreasonable what the Minister considers to be reasonable. How much per week or per month?
There are some points which I have not covered in my reply but Deputies can be assured they will be taken into account when we are in a position to consider further improvements for Army personnel.
Question put and agreed to.