Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1980

Vol. 322 No. 7

Army Pensions Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara Uair anois."

Is É príomh cuspóir an Bhille, liúntais a chur ar fáil do bhaintreacha daoine, a raibh liúntais speisialta ar fáil acu, faoi mar a fograíodh sa cháinfhaisnéis i mí Feabhra seo caite agus chun feabhas a chur ar liúntais do bhaintreacha agus leanaí oifigigh agus saighdiúirí a fuair bás i mbun a ndualgas nó a chailltear, laistigh de cheithre bhliana, de bharr chréachta a bhfuaireadar le linn a seirbhís.

Cúis mhórshásaimh dom an Bille seo a chur os comhair an Tí os rud é go rachaidh sé chun sochair do bhaintreacha daoine a raibh liúntas speisialta acu agus cuirfidh ábhar an Bhille cúnamh breise ar fáil do bhaintreacha shaighdiúirí. Táim cinnte go nglacfaidh Teachtaí go fábharach leis. Tá foráil freisin sa Bhille chun iarrataistí a ghlacadh a dhiúltaíodh roimhe sin toisc iad a bheith déanach.

Tugann an Bille seo cúnamh breise do bhaintreacha na Sean-Óglaigh a ghlac páirt i gCogadh na Saoirse. Don chéad uair riamh, tá liúntais á dtabhairt do bhaintreacha na ndaoine a raibh liúntais speisialta á n-íoc dóibh.

Go dtí seo cuireadh deireadh le liúntas speisialta ar bhás an íocaí agus níl aon fhóráil sna hAchtanna chun liúntas a íoc leis an mbaintreach. Cuireadh liúntas do bhaintreacha pinsinéirí seirbhíse míleata ar fáil san Acht Arm Phinsean 1971 agus molann an Bille seo liúntas de £185 sa bhliain a íoc le baintreacha daoine a raibh liúntas speisialta acu.

Maidir leis na liúntais bhreise do bhaintreacha agus leanaí oifigeach agus saighdiúrí a chailltear de bharr chréachta, tá na rátaí nua i bhfad níos buntáistí ná an socrú atá ann faoi láthair. Faoí na forálacha nua gheobhaidh baintreach a bhfuil triúr chlainne aici 90 faoin gcéad de phá a céile i dteannta na haiscí atá ann faoi láthair. Is é mo thuairim gur cheart agus gur chóir, go ndéanfaí gach ní is féidir chun soláthar a dhéanamh do bhaintreacha agus leanaí na bhfear a chailltear i mbun a ndualgas agus táim cinnte go n-aontóidh an Teach liom san dearcadh seo. Bainfidh an fhoráil nua le hoifigigh agus saighdiúirí a gointear sa bhaile nó i gcéin.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the widows of special allowance holders as announced in the 1980 budget statement and to improve the allowances payable to the widows and children of military personnel who are killed in the course of their duty or who die from a wound attributable to service within four years of being wounded. It also contains a regulation-making provision and proposes an extension of the time limit in certain circumstances for accepting applications for disablement pensions and allowances.

Section 2 provides for the payment of a flat-rate allowance of £185 a year effective from 1 July 1980 to the widow of a person who dies while in receipt of a special allowance. It also comprehends the widows of persons whose application for a special allowance was being processed or whose special allowance was being reviewed and who, but for dying, would have satisfied the statutory conditions for the grant or further grant of a special allowance. There are also a number whose special allowance was terminated in the past because their means exceeded the appropriate annual sum prescribed in the Army Pensions Acts. To bring the widows of such former special allowance holders within the ambit of the section, I propose to grant the allowance of £185 a year to them if their means do not equal or exceed the current appropriate annual sum prescribed for the grant of a special allowance.

When a special allowance holder dies and probate or letters of administration show that there has been non-disclosure of means on the part of the deceased, an overpayment of special allowance may have arisen. Section 3 of the Bill provides for recovery. Nowadays any overpayment that comes to light can usually be met from other moneys which are payable by the Department. Nevertheless as the new allowance may be said to flow from the special allowance, it is necessary to make provision as in section 3.

A person in receipt of a special allowance could also be in receipt of a military service pension under the Military Service Pensions Acts or a disability pension under the Army Pensions Acts. Provision already exists in the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1973, for the payment of an allowance to the widow of a military service pensioner or, subject to certain conditions, to the widow of a person who died while in receipt of a disability pension. The current amount of any allowance in either of these cases is greater than the flat-rate allowance being provided for in this Bill. Where the higher allowances are payable, section 4 of the Bill provides that the new allowance will not apply.

In accordance with the terms of section 13 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, the new allowance will be disregarded as means for the purposes of the Social Welfare Acts. Accordingly the new allowance will be paid in addition to any pension or allowance payable under those Acts.

I might mention that as a corollary to the introduction of the new allowance, I am arranging that, effective from 1 July 1980, the minimum rate of special allowance will be £185 a year. This increase is not provided for in this Bill as it is not necessary to do so; the required statutory provision can be made by way of regulations which will be laid before the House.

Section 5 of the Bill provides that if an officer or a soldier is killed in the course of his duty or in circumstances attributable to his service, or dies from a wound attributable to service and within four years of receiving the wound, his widow and childern will be eligible for the following benefits: Widow—50 per cent of the deceased's annual pay; Each eligible child—If the mother is alive, 13? per cent of the deceased's annual pay; If the mother is dead, 26? per cent of the deceased's annual pay subject to a maximum of 40 per cent on behalf of the childern.

Under this provision if an officer or a soldier dies in the circumstances mentioned, leaving a widow and three children, the allowances payable would amount to 90 per cent of his annual pay. To complete the picture I should say that provision already exists for the payment of certain gratuities over and above the allowances being provided for in this section. The section also applies to the new allowances certain general sections of earlier Army Pensions Acts and makes the effective date 1 March 1975.

Perhaps I should explain that the section relates to personnel killed or wounded whether at home or abroad. It is I think a very valuable and worthwhile provision, and while the loss of a husband and father is an irreparable one we should try as far as possible to ensure that the widow and children are provided for. Any widow whose husband died in the circumstances specified in the section will get the benefit of the new allowances irrespective of the date of death of the husband. Therefore, a widow to whom the section applies, whose husband was killed at any time before 1975, will be given the benefit of the enhanced benefits from 1 March 1975. She will already have been in receipt of allowances under the provisions of the Army Pensions Act, 1927, as modified over the years, and the increased allowances now proposed will be applied to her automatically as the Department will already be in posession of the relevant particulars.

As regards section 6 the position is that a number of cases have arisen where persons who applied for benefits under the Army Pensions Acts in the past were refused because their applications were not made within the statutory time limit required by the Acts. I propose to give all such persons an opportunity of renewing their applications within a period of twelve months after the enactment of the Bill, and section 6 provides accordingly. If Deputies are aware of any such cases I should be glad to hear from them. The new provision will be publicised by my Department and every effort will be made to identify all relevant cases. I should perhaps mention that the section does not apply to the review of existing awards which is provided for in the Army Pensions Act, 1973, or to cases which failed other than on the ground that the applicant was late in applying.

Section 7 is a regulation-making provision. Provision already exists in the Army Pensions Acts—in section 7 of the 1968 Act—for the making of regulations under the Acts, but that provision is confined to increases where such increases form part of general increases in the public service. This section is designed to give greater flexibility by permitting other modifications. At present even a routine amendment, for example to extend a time limit, requires an amending Bill. This procedure, which takes up the time of the House, has been commented on by Deputies in the past, and may entail lengthy delays for people who are awaiting benefits. The House will still be able to keep a watch on matters through the operation of the provision requiring regulations to be laid before it with power to annul them.

When a disablement pensioner, whose degree of disability is fifty per cent or more, dies, his widow and children are automatically entitled to allowances under section 3 of the Army Pensions Act, 1968 irrespective of the cause of death. Under subsection (4) of that section applications for such allowances must be made within 12 months after the date of death of the deceased. As the award of allowances in such cases is automatic and does not require any investigation as to the attributability of death to military service, I am satisfied no useful purpose is served by retaining a time limit for applications in these cases. Section 7 of the Bill repeals this time limit with effect from the passing of the 1968 Act, on 11 June 1968. I trust my remarks, coupled with the explanatory memorandum have made the provisions of the Bill clear to Deputies. I recommend the Bill for the favourable consideration of the House.

I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy enactment. The concessions mentioned in the Bill are long overdue. The time limit of four years should be dropped altogether in relation to people who have made an immense contribution to the State. It would be much more generous to just leave it that where a death is attributable to a wound or injury received in the course of service to the nation, the award would be made. We are talking about the widows and young children of people serving in the Army or Defence Forces. At the moment, if a person dies four years and a day after he has received the wound his widow and children would be disqualified from the concessions in the Bill. Will the Minister look at this aspect and consider dropping the four years from the Bill?

As I said during the course of the Estimate, the vast majority of us do not appreciate the contribution our armed forces are making not just to the nation but to the preservation of world peace. Having regard to their immense contribution towards world peace the UN and other major powers should also play a role. In trouble spots throughout the world Irish soldiers are keeping great powers apart. Particularly in recent events we have seen how members of our forces have made the supreme sacrifice and have lost their lives in the service of world peace. The sooner we realise the sacrifice made by our Defence Forces in the Congo, in Cyprus and in the Lebanon in the preservation of peace, in preventing a major powers confrontation which could mean the end of civilisation, the better. It is accepted by parliamentarians throughout the world that in their efficiency, their dedication to duties and in their tolerance our forces are second to none. The UN and the major powers have a role to play, and as well as the concessions given in this Bill I feel they should give something in addition, such as educational opportunities for the children of the Army personnel who have lost their lives in the service of this noble cause. The goodwill will be there and the Government could use their position to alert the UN and the powers I have mentioned to this aspect of their contribution to these people who made such a supreme sacrifice.

The Minister might consider making posthumous awards to the widows or families of soldiers who have lost their lives. It would be treasured by such families and would be a recognition of the sacrifice which their dear ones made to the State and to the world. Perhaps the Minister might consider that in this Bill. It is something that would be appreciated by the widows and families concerned and particularly the children who would grow up in admiration of the cause in which their father died.

I welcome the concession for widows of those who were in receipt of special allowances. In this respect we have been very niggardly in the past. We introduced rigid means tests for the families of those who fought for freedom. Each year they became fewer and fewer, and we should eliminate any form of means tests for widows of people who were in receipt of special allowances. I welcome the time extension for application for such allowances. We should be in a position to say that people are entitled to an allowance or they are not, and we should not put barriers of that kind in their way. We legislate in the House to give effect to concessions of that kind and we will not be remembered as being very generous. Having made the concessions we should not impose artificial barriers in relation to time. We are noted for that kind of procedure.

I welcome the Bill at this time when some of our army personnel have lost their lives in the Lebanon. I put down a question in relation to the widow of one of them. I was glad that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the absence of the Minister for Defence, gave assurances which did not make the Minister out to be the big bad wolf as was published in some papers to which I have drawn the Minister's attention. I would be horrified if I thought there was anything of that kind. I am glad the statement made was wrong and that the Minister took the opportunity to correct it. I wish the Bill a speedy enactment and hope that once it becomes law there will be no delay in processing applications made under it.

The provisions of this Bill are to be welcomed in so far as they begin to eliminate one of the injustices which operate against army personnel. Soldiers who die in the course of duty or from injuries received during the course of duty must have a special place in our legislation. The Dáil must accept that we have an obligation to the widows and children of soldiers.

Section 5 of the Bill seeks to give effect to that obligation by giving 50 per cent of the soldier's salary to his widow and 13½ per cent to each child, up to a maximum of 40 per cent for the children. A widow with three or more children will receive 90 per cent of her husband's salary. However, we disagree with the provision that the 40 per cent limit should apply also to children whose mother is dead. This is discrimination. They should be entitled to 90 per cent. They are orphans because of their father's service to the State, and why should they be charges on the social welfare system? We also regard it as discrimination against the children that their entitlement ceases if their mother remarries. They still remain the children of the deceased soldier and the State should continue to honour its obligations to them.

We welcome the provisions of section 6 which extends the time limit in which to claim the pension by a period of 12 months after the passage of this Bill. I am delighted that Deputy Ryan, a member of our party, was responsible for highlighting this. As a result of a delay in application a dependant was disqualified until such time as he highlighted the case. The dependants of all soldiers who die in the course of duty should be notified of their rights. Far too often Bills go through the House and the Minister and Opposition speakers might know about them but other than that they appear to be a huge military secret and people do not know anything about their entitlement or rights. For that reason they could be disqualified, for example, due to a delay in applying for benefit.

I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to advertise this section of the Bill extensively. Like Deputy Creed I find that far too often we have time limits. They can be very dangerous and deny to dependants a right to be cared for by the State. It would be a grave injustice to say that because a person died from his injuries after four years and one day, for the sake of 24 hours people who would be entitled to a benefit would be denied it. I appeal to the Minister to look at this and try, if he cannot remove the time limit, at least to extend it for a longer period.

I fail to understand why if the widow of a pensioner remarries the children are denied the pension which is their entitlement. There is a considerable reduction in income from 90 per cent to 40 per cent. Such children are the children of the soldier, and if the mother remarries, which she is entitled to do, the children should not be disqualified from receiving their allocation of the pension.

I hope the Minister will consider that. In my view the widow of a pensioner who remarries should not automatically lose her entitlement. There should be a continuation of the allowance for 12 months or at least six months. The fact that a widow is automatically disqualified on remarriage is unjust. From my reading of the Bill children are also excluded on the widow's remarriage. As children of the pensioner they should not be victimised. I should like the Minister to explain section 5 (2) which states:

A widow, who is entitled to an allowance under this section, shall be paid an amount equal to one-half of her husband's annual pay at the date of his death or discharge and every child who is entitled to such an allowance shall be paid an amount equal to—

(a) if his mother is alive, 13? per cent of his father's annual pay at the date of his death or discharge,

or

(b) if his mother is dead, 26? per cent of his father's annual pay at the date of his death or discharge:

I should like to know if the 26? per cent allowance is because of a lesser number than three in a family? Is that allowance brought up to 40 per cent in the case of three children? I should like to know if the 26? per cent allowance applies in the case of a one-child family.

The Minister will reply to all points later.

I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I am pleased that some of the injustices which exist are being eliminated.

I should like to thank the Deputies who contributed and I am glad to see that they obviously share my view that it is a worthwhile measure. The most significant provisions contain benefits for widows. For the first time widows of special allowance holders are being provided for under the Bill. That is in accordance with the statement in the budget in February last. As I gleaned from statements by Opposition speakers they regard that as a welcome development. I should like to repeat that the allowance will be disregarded in the calculation of means for the purpose of old age pensions and widows' pensions under the Social Welfare Acts and will, therefore, be additional to any payments under those Acts. Deputy Creed referred to the limit of four years, and I should like to tell him that we feel it necessary to have some time limit because it could prove difficult to link the death of a former member of the Defence Forces with the wound which it is claimed was the cause of his death. It would be difficult to establish attributability if the time limit were done away with.

The same argument applies in relation to time limits generally. It can be to the benefit of the applicant that there should be a time limit because if that were not so, the matter could be delayed by the individual concerned before applying and it would not be possible to prove in some instances that death occurred because of the injury received. If the Bill is agreed it will be possible to extend that time limit by regulation in the future. It would be to the advantage of the persons concerned if they recognised that it is necessary to make the application as quickly as possible. I agree with what Deputy Creed said about the exceptional contribution made by the Defence Forces to peace-keeping at home and abroad.

Deputy Lipper asked if we were taking sufficient steps to ensure that all those entitled to the new allowance would get it. I can assure the Deputy that every possible step will be taken to ensure that. I should like to tell the Deputy that the children's allowance will continue even in the event of the widow remarrying. With regard to the Deputy's query in relation to section 5 (2) I should like to tell him that a smaller family in the event of the death of the mother would benefit to a greater degree. The question of a means test, raised by Deputy Creed, has been mentioned on many occasions before, and I should like to repeat that at present it is far from severe. It has been relaxed on a number of occasions over the years. For example, the social welfare benefits are largely disregarded and the annual budgetary increases in those benefits are ignored. The means test is essential to ensure that the maximum allowance can be paid to those who are in the greatest need. I thank the Deputies sincerely for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

I am prepared to give the Minister all Stages but I am concerned about a point I made on Second Stage. I do not accept the Minister's reasoning in relation to the four-year time limit.

If the Deputy agrees to take the Committee Stage he can raise that matter on the appropriate section.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Top
Share