Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 Jul 1923

Vol. 1 No. 36

LAND BILL. - SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS BILL, 1923.

Question proposed: "That the Superannuation and Pensions Bill, 1923," be read a Second Time.

This Bill deals with a number of different classes of officials. First of all, it deals with what has been described as Dáil Civil Servants. These are officials who have been in the employment of the First and Second Dáil, and who have been absorbed into the Civil Service of the Saorstát. By machinery that has been set up by this Bill, it is proposed to give them the superannuation advantages that the present Civil Service of the Saorstát enjoys. There was a verbal undertaking by more than one member of the old Dáil Cabinet that these advantages would be given to them, and we are carrying out or redeeming that pledge in the First Section. As regards the Second Section, it deals with the reinstatement of persons who were dismissed from the Civil Service for political reasons. During the last five or six years a number of Civil Servants were dismissed—mainly for political causes. Quite a number of others were dismissed for other causes. A great many representations were made, shortly after the Provisional Government came into being, with a view to having these cases reconsidered. A committee was set up by the Minister for Finance, the membership of which was disclosed to the Dáil. In fact it was at the express wish of a number of members of the Dáil that the Committee was set up. They examined and investigated a very large number of cases, restoring to their office a large number of Civil Servants.

Once their term of office was determined when they were brought back again, it was necessary to bridge the periods, in order to give them the advantages that they would have had if their terms of appointment had not been determined. The third Section deals with the reinstatment of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police dismissed for the same reasons. There was not a very large number of them, and, speaking from memory, I do not think it reached a dozen, but I am not banking on that as being an absolutely correct statement. At the moment my information is that there were half-a-dozen, but if they numbered two dozen I would not be surprised. Section 4 deals with certain cases of persons belonging to three particular forces—the Criminal Investigation Department, Citizens' Defence Force, and the Protective Force. Two of these —the Criminal Investigation Department and the Protective Force—figured in the Estimates.

The Citizens' Defence Force does not figure in the Estimates. A number of questions were raised in the Dáil as to what this Force was, by whom it was officered, and other questions of that nature were asked. The Criminal Investigation Department is well known, and I do not expect it is necessary to go into any explanation of it. The Protective Force is also described in the Estimates, and I think no question will arise about it. The third one—the Citizens' Defence Force—was mobilised about March or April. Perhaps some of the members were mobilised in February. I do not remember the exact date. We found after it was mobilised that there was no fund from which the services of its members could have been allowed for. It was paid out of the Secret Service Fund. These men belonging to these two organisations were mainly used for protecting houses, sometimes for protecting persons. They carried arms, and in some cases there were casualties amongst them. One case occurred in Beresford Place where, it may be in the recollection of the Seanad, a bomb was left outside the Income Tax office, and the man on duty there unfortunately opened the door, and the bomb exploded, killing him. Now, we consider that that man gave his life in the defence of the State, and if there were dependants, that those dependants should have some means provided for them by the State for the loss and sacrifice they made for its safety. Some of them were wounded— some accidentally. The particular charge in that case will not be very considerable.

The fifth clause is—it appears that somewhere about 1914 the amendment of the Teachers' Pension Rules was in contemplation, but it appears that this particular amendment or order, or whatever it was at the time, did not come into operation until October, and the Pensions Increase Act of 1920 dealt with the period —I think it was—the 4th of August, 1914. Although it is generally admitted that the Pensions Act ought to have applied to the particular amendment that was made in the Teachers' Pension Rules, but could not, by reason of the dates, the teachers who benefited by the amendment did not get any increase in the amounts that they benefited by according to this particular amendment Last year, very shortly after the Provisional Government was set up, representations were made to General Collins, who was Chairman of the Provisional Government, and he undertook to rectify this particular grievance that the teachers believed themselves to be suffering from by reason of this. We rectified the mistake as from April, 1922, redeeming his promise to that extent.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 deal with certain technicalities of the law giving to certain individuals rights that they ought to possess, but by reason of the change of Government or the change of certain Departments they might possibly suffer disadvantages if power were not taken here to rectify them. Also, in Section 7 there is provision made for determining certain funds and giving certain legal definitions to funds which might otherwise lead to dispute and to the disadvantage of certain officials. That is a brief summary of the main purposes of the Bill.

Question put: "That the Bill be read a second time."
Agreed.
Standing Orders suspended and the Bill passed through all its stages.
Top
Share