Deputy Paul McGrath gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter as to the plight of Army widows who on their bereavement on the death of their husbands discover they are unable to draw widow's or orphan's allowance because without their knowledge or consent their spouse had opted out of the pension scheme. Deputy McGrath has five minutes to present his case and the Minister has five minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Army Pension Scheme.
I thank you sincerely, Sir, for affording me the opportunity of raising this matter on the Floor of the House. I understand that my colleague, Deputy Ted Nealon, intends contributing also. Will it be in order to share some of my time with him?
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I wish to draw attention to the plight of some Army widows who through no fault of their own are destined to endure the remainder of their lives existing on the paltry sum of £56 per week, the non-contributory widows pension. This arises because of the introduction in 1977 to the Defence Forces of a spouse's and children's contributory pension scheme. This was an optional scheme and, as I understand it, Army personnel had a choice of opting in or out of this scheme. Personnel were given an explanatory leaflet and unless they completed and returned it they were not included in the scheme. Can we be absolutely sure that everyone who did not return that form was adequately aware of the implications of this non-action for their spouses and children at a future date? I believe a minimum of guidance was given and this guidance varied from one locality to another.
Remember, those were much less enlightened times than we live in now. Those were times before marriage was seen as a partnership, before we recognised the obligations of a husband to share not just the decision making but the child rearing and domestic chores with his wife. It really was not good enough that a husband could be allowed to opt out of such a scheme which had no benefits for himself but affected only the person or persons who had no say in this decision. It was an injustice to women and, I should say, to their children. It was an injustice on the part played by these women, their spouses, in being their partners in marriage and their homemakers. Those were times when reading leaflets and form filling were seen by some as being superfluous.
Was it good enough that such a crucial decison which would affect the welfare of spouses and children alike would be dealt with in such a haphazard way? What about the members who may have been illiterate or did not understand the implications of this scheme put to them in such technical language, implications which would affect their spouses and children?
What can we do now for these poor people, a small defenceless group, victims of those less enlightened times. Their plight seems to have escaped even the Gleeson report completely.
Perhaps a small case study will bring the problem to light for us all. A widow bereaved this year approached me with her problem. She explained that her husband was a good man, had provided for her and their children in a modest way. Times were hard for them and the luxuries of life were scarce. She got a weekly housekeeping allowance. She did not know how much her husband earned, much less what pension scheme he opted in or out of. He had 41 years' service when he died and she could not believe when she was told she had no Army pension. It was a terrible shock.
There is one minute left of the overall time available to the Deputy, including his colleague.
She said her dignity was gone and she felt abandoned by the Defence Forces.
I thank you, Sir, and also my colleague for the opportunity of speaking. I raised this matter along with my colleague with the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Brian Lenihan. He said he would have the matter examined and I look forward now to the Minister of State telling us the result of that examination.
There is no question at all, as the Army insist, that they have their legal rights not to give any pension. They have no real obligation. They can dismiss this claim, but is that the right attitude for the Army to take towards people, some of whom served over 40 years in the Army, to dismiss their widows with nothing at all? It is very much a question of what information they had at that time and in particular what information the wives, now the widows, had at that time. All the evidence we have suggests very little real information existed.
I must now call the Minister.
The Minister should take action.
Pensions for the widows of deceased soldiers are provided under a contributory pension scheme which was introduced in 1978. All personnel who enlisted after its establishment automatically became members of the scheme.
In the case of personnel serving in the Defence Forces when the scheme was introduced, membership of the scheme was voluntary and such personnel had to be given the choice as to whether they wished to join the scheme. In addition to those who opted into the scheme, those who neglected to exercise any option were enrolled. Only those soldiers who specifically made a choice and gave notice in writing that they were opting out of the scheme were not enrolled in it. It was made clear to all such personnel at the time that benefits under the scheme would be paid only to the dependents of soldiers who were paid up members of the scheme. Extensive briefings about the provisions of the scheme were given by the military authorities to all personnel concerned, including those serving overseas with the United Nations.
A second opportunity to enrol in the contributory pension scheme for widows and children was granted in 1985, when the scheme was revised. The personnel who had declined to join in 1978 were again invited to reconsider their decision and given a second chance to provide cover for their dependents by joining the revised scheme. Some did not take up the choice when that second opportunity to do so was presented to them.
In the normal course all privates and NCOs in the Defence Forces pay PRSI and the widows of soldiers qualify for the contributory widow's pension in accordance with the standard procedures of the Department of Social Welfare. The benefits payable under the scheme administered by my Department are additional to the social welfare widow's pensions.
While I sympathise with the position of widows whose husbands decided to opt out of the scheme, the contributory pension scheme operated by my Department for military personnel works on the insurance principle, with members paying the appropriate contributions in return for the cover they receive. It would be contrary to this principle to provide cover retrospectively. It was made clear to personnel when they were taking the decision to opt out that as a result no benefits could be paid to their dependents. This condition applies to similar contributory pension schemes in the public service.