Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1948

Vol. 35 No. 4

Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Bill, 1948. (Certified Money Bill)—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

Fortunately, this is a very short and a very simple Bill. Originally, a Bill was passed to give pensions to members of the Irish Volunteers, the Citizen Army, Cumann na mBan, Fianna Éireann and other bodies; and in that Bill it was laid down that there would be a reduction of their pension, of approximately 20 per cent., for every £100 they drew out of public funds by way of pay, wages, pension, or any other form of allowance out of public funds. At a later date, it was decided to extend the same Bill to cover the Connaught Rangers and the same scale of abatement applied.

Two years ago, a Bill was introduced and passed into law to alter the scales of abatement of pension, so that so much would not be subtracted from the pension. When that was being done, there was a mistake or omission and that particular amending Bill did not extend to the Connaught Rangers. Therefore, the Connaught Rangers pensioners are still suffering under the heavy disability of the original scale of abatement. This Bill is to alter that and equate them with other pensioners. It will be retrospective in effect, as it will apply from the same date as the Act of 1945 applied to the others. It is not a very expensive Bill. The retrospective cost is, I think, £162 and the new imposition on the taxpayer will be something around £50 a year.

Mr. Duffy

I hope I may be permitted to refer to the question of abatement generally, as I am concerned not so much with what is in the Bill in relation to the Connaught Rangers as with what I feel should be done regarding abatement generally. To make a comparison, if a person is employed by a quarry owner and is a pensioner—whether under the Connaught Rangers Act or any of the other Acts that provide for pensions of one kind or another subject to abatement—he gets his full pay from the quarry owner and his full pension as provided in the Schedules to those various Acts. If, however, he happens to be working for the county council, he suffers an abatement. I cannot see the principle on which abatement is provided for in relation to the pension because the recipient is employed by the State or by a local authority, in other words, paid out of public funds, where it does not affect the other workers, his colleagues, working for an employer.

The Connaught Rangers Act, 1936, awarded a pension to the men who joined the mutiny in June and July, 1920, and who were sentenced to death or to a period of jail not less than 12 months. For a private soldier, the rate of pension was 2/7½ per day or 18/4½ a week—that is, those who had more than 12 months' service with the British Forces at the time. If they had less than 12 months, they were entitled to a gratuity, which finished their claims. This Section 18 was inserted for the purpose of reducing the pension which was then payable under an Act, if they were in receipt of wage or salary out of public funds. Where the salary or remuneration did not exceed £100, the cut was 5 per cent.; it then proceeded up to 30 per cent. in the case of a person with £250 pension—I imagine they were very few with a pension of £250—and if they had £150 the abatement was equal to 20 per cent.

This Bill makes an alteration, to this extent, that a person with £5 a week pension—if there are any; I do not suppose there are—will suffer an abatement of 10 per cent., equal to 1/10½ per day. The old rate of abatement was 40 per cent., or 7/4 a day. In other words, this means that the man who was getting 11/- pension heretofore will now get 16/6, but there will be very few of that category.

There is a number of people including the Connaught Rangers affected by this Bill and, of course, a number of other people entitled to pensions who are affected by this abatement. I would like the Minister to consider the position generally, to see whether legislation could not be introduced for the purpose of abolishing this abatement altogether. I do not think it will cost very much. I think it was mentioned by the Minister in the Dáil that the total cost would be about £28,000 a year. That is a sum which will become gradually less. These men are all getting older; very few of them are under 60 years of age and none of them is under 50. The sum involved will grow less by about £1,000 each year and in 28 years from now there will be none of these pensions. The Minister might consider whether it is not opportune to get rid of these abatements altogether, so that a man who is employed by the county council or by the State should enjoy the same rate of remuneration, plus his pension, as if he were employed by Córas Iompair Éireann, by the Electricity Supply Board or any other private employer.

There is really no logical basis for these deductions and I gather from what the Minister said in the Dáil that he himself is not too keen on the present arrangement. I would, therefore, urge that he might take a very early opportunity of reviewing the situation generally, to see whether these anomalies could not be removed completely.

Mr. Quirke

I rise to support the Bill and, speaking for people on this side of the House, I think I am right in saying that everybody is wholeheartedly in sympathy with the motive behind this measure. We all appreciate the contribution made by the Connaught Rangers towards the achievement of such freedom as we have already gained in this part of the country. We believe that anything that could be done for those people should be done.

Arising out of the statement made by Senator Duffy, I think it is only right to say that, as the years go by, the numbers are becoming less—and the same thing applies to the Old I.R.A. The idea behind this measure is to level things up and put them on the same basis of pension as the Old I.R.A. The numbers are becoming smaller every day and anyone who has kept tab on it must be aware of the fact that practically every day of the week one prominent Old I.R.A. man is passing out. It is only the prominent ones who are mentioned in the newspapers.

There must be several men who were not so prominent, either at that time or now, who were equally good, or perhaps better, men. Anything that can be done for these men—including all branches mentioned by the Minister as well as the Connaught Rangers— should be done. I would like the Minister to look into the matter, in the spirit in which I am sure he will look into it, that is, that the value of the £ has become far less than it was at the time those pensions were granted. These men, diminishing in numbers, are reaching the evening of their lives and while a certain value may have been put on their pensions at the time they were granted, that value has decreased very considerably, and the Minister should look into the position and see if anything could be done to increase the rate of pensions all round, whether by the method set out in the Bill or in some other way, so as to enable these men who made sacrifices in the past to live in at least reasonable comfort for the few years left to them.

Mr. Colgan

I support the Bill and I should like to say I appreciate very much the Minister's gesture in making the Bill retrospective. I felt that possibly an injustice might be done to these men by reason of the fact that they were forgotten, that they would have to pay for that now. It is a very fine gesture on the Minister's part. I support also Senator Duffy's plea. Unfortunately, the great majority of the people who fought in the Old I.R.A. and in the 1916 period were men of no property and many of them had subsequently to depend on the Government for employment. Many of them, as a result, found themselves in Government employment. I spoke on this matter in this House before when the previous pensions Bill was being debated.

We have in this House men who suffered a serious deduction from their pensions while members of the Seanad. Their salary was not affected and I make that point now, as I made it then. I feel that it is rather niggardly to give men pensions and then to deduct from these pensions the salary or wage they get because they had to depend on the Government or local bodies for employment. I have had experience of men sweeping the streets with lowly wages who suffered a 20 per cent. cut. This Bill and the previous Bill will obviate that, but I should like the Minister to take cognisance of what Senator Duffy has said with regard to considering the question of these abatements, with a view to their abolition.

Mr. Hawkins

I also support the Bill. The Minister said that, when the Bill to give the same facilities to those in receipt of Old I.R.A. pensions and various other pensions for services renered in the fight for freedom was introduced, the Connaught Rangers were omitted. I do not think that is entirely correct. My reading of the situation is that the Bill making the provision referred to, the first Bill, introduced in respect of services rendered by the Connaught Rangers, was a separate Bill and therefore a proposal to give the facilities we are now giving to the Connaught Rangers would necessitate the introduction of a separate Bill as this is, a Bill to amend the original Connaught Rangers Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to that fact, lest any misunderstanding should arise out of the Minister's statement that the Connaught Rangers were omitted or forgotten, when the previous Bill giving concessions was introduced.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I agree that the abatement of pensions is a bad principle. No man or woman should get a pension unless he or she has earned it, and, if he or she has earned it, it is nobody's right to deduct anything from that pension. Senator Duffy pointed out that, if a pensioner gets employment with a private employer, no deduction is made, and public bodies should be under the same obligation to allow a man to retain the pension which, presumably, he has earned.

There is one other matter which has not been raised yet on which I should like to comment. Senator Quirke referred to the now almost unknown heroes of our time, but a great many now living have forgotten all about the Connaught Rangers and their mutiny. The Connaught Rangers, in my opinion, did a braver thing than anybody in this country when they mutinied. They took a risk far greater than the majority of people in this country ever faced or had to face. No doubt, they would have faced it if they had had to do so, but the circumstances were different. These plain soldiers of a British regiment risked their lives, thousands of miles away from their own homes, not knowing whether they would ever be heard of again and not caring if anyone would pity them or raise a voice in support of their dependents.

Ninety men were put on trial and 61 were sentenced. I assume that these 61 men all got pensions, but there were 29 suspected and arrested men, who for one reason or another, were not imprisoned, except for a short period. They were a month or two in jail on dry bread and black tea. They were confined for 23 hours a day and finally kicked out of the regiment with ignominy, receiving neither pensions nor anything else, except a ticket to their own homes. They came back to Ireland and a few of them are still living, but they were nobody's children when they returned. The Sailors' and Soldiers' Trust and other organisations set up to look after the welfare of ex-British soldiers would not touch them with a forty-foot pole and nobody raised a hand for them since. They were deprived of their rights when they came back and they got employment neither with public bodies nor with anybody else. Because they happened not to be imprisoned, they were forgotten and debarred.

I suppose it is too late now for anybody to make a plea for them. We cannot pension or compensate the few who remain, but if I do nothing more than put on record that this country owes as great a debt to the men who did not get pensions as it does to the men who did, I shall have done something. The same thing applies here in our country. I know people who have risen to great prominence for no other reason than that they were in jail, while people who were not in jail did far more for the country.

Dr. O'Higgins

When I referred to this Bill in relation to the Bill of 1945 as being an omission, I had no intention, good, bad or indifferent, of misrepresenting the situation or misleading the House. The fact of the matter is that the two Bills originally were separate. One of them was amended three years ago and the other was not amended. It would be unfair if I made the suggestion that there was any deliberate intention of not doing justice to the Connaught Rangers. I thought the fairest way to put it, the way which was accepted by Deputy Traynor in the Dáil, was that it was an omission. I believe that is the fact and the omission is being rectified by agreement between all parties.

With regard to representations made from all sides on the question of doing away with this system of deductions from pensions, so far as any of these representations are made to me as an individual, Senators are pushing an open door; but I am slowly learning to differentiate between myself as an individual and myself as the political head of a Department, and, in the latter capacity, I am learning that it is wise to be cautious and not to commit myself too far, but I can assure the Seanad that the representations made all round are very welcome and will receive very full consideration. I will see that they are conveyed further.

There is a point about this whole matter of reducing pensions. It has a history in itself. The original Military Service Pensions Bill was introduced very shortly after the establishment of the State and those who had given service would, in the ordinary course of events, be queueing up in great numbers for public employment of one kind or another. This system of deductions from pensions was adopted in order to reduce the length of the queue. It has ling since ceased to have any function in that direction. It has fully served its usefulness in that direction and I would agree with those Senators who have spoken that there is a very sound case for reconsideration of the whole question and I will see that the views of Senators are conveyed to the Government generally.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages today.

Bill passed through Committee, without recommendation; received for final consideration; and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.