I do not think there is really very much to this Bill. A Supplementary Estimate, as Senators may be aware, was introduced and passed in Dáil Eireann last summer to increase the pensions given under the various Army and Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts. This Bill is concerned with wound and disability pensions. A certain amount of money was indicated and permission was given to expend it and these increased pensions have been payable since September 1st. The question of allocating the money involved a kind of mathematical process. It was not as simple as increasing pensions, say, for civil servants, because in that case you could give the greatest percentage increase to those in receipt of the lowest rate of pension, but when you came to wound and disability pensions it rather stood on its head because those in receipt of the lowest pension were those least disabled and best calculated to be capable of earning a reasonable wage over and above their pension. That was one of the difficulties that confronted them. Another difficulty was that under the various Acts enumerated in this Bill and passed at different periods of our history you had different rates of pension for similar disabilities. For instance, you had a rate of pension under the 1924 Act for a man who lost one leg and a completely different rate, under a subsequent Act, for a man who lost one leg. We had to do our best to equate the rates of pension for similar disabilities and the whole thing was very mathematical and complicated. It was worked out by a staff of experts who had been dealing with these things from the very beginning and the Bill incorporates the most humane system we could devise in allocating the moneys and I am recommending it.
Army Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1949 (Certified Money Bill)—Second and Subsequent Stages.
We are in agreement with the principle of the Bill and we do not wish to hold up its implementation.
Mr. Hayes
As the Bill was unopposed in the other House and here, perhaps we would take the other stages now. It is a Money Bill, of course.
Normally we would dislike to agree to all stages being taken now, but in view of the fact, as Senator Hayes has said, that the Bill was unopposed and that we are in agreement with the principle underlying it, although one could go through it and after a good deal of trouble and bother disagree perhaps with some of the sections dealing with the mathematical working out of the money allocated, I have very grave doubts whether we could better it, and we agree to take all stages now.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Can we have any indication from the Minister that this will be the last measure of this character coming before either the Dáil or the Seanad? If there is to be a similar measure in the future, I would like the Minister to make up his mind and to give us some better definitions than are contained in this Bill.
My own personal view is—and I feel sure it is largely shared throughout the State—that any young man who has suffered 100 per cent. disability, because of the action he took in the 1916 Rebellion or subsequent military activities, should certainly receive a measure of compensation; and those who suffered the loss of an arm or a leg, or both arms or both legs, should also be adequately compensated by way of pension or gratuity. I have also the greatest sympathy with the mother of a boy or the wife of a man who lost his life or suffered disability because of his activities in the I.R.A. during the period covered by the Bill. I think, however, that we should here and now make ourselves vocal in regard to this whole position. It would be interesting to the general public— who have to foot the bill in this, as in all other cases where pensions are concerned—to have some idea from the Minister as to the number of persons who were engaged actively during the period under review.
I suggest that the Senator is speaking to the wrong Bill.
I submit I am in order in referring to pensions coming under this measure before the House.
Mr. Hayes
The Senator seems to be under the impression that we are dealing with the Military Service Pensions Bill (No. 4).
The same remarks will apply. I have already stated that I have the utmost sympathy with the person injured during the course of military activities, but I think we should have some indication from the Minister as to the number of those persons who, it is estimated, were engaged in those activities over the period mentioned.
This Bill is confined to the Army.
It is time we had some indication from the Minister, to let us see how we stand.
I suggest that the Senator reserve what he has to say until we come to the Military Service Pensions Bill.
Captain Orpen
I take it that the necessity for this Bill has arisen mainly because of the alteration in the purchasing power of the £. Presumably, under the previous Acts the pensions were in reasonable adjustment to the cost of living at the time they were passed. Am I right in assuming that the main necessity for this Bill is due to the pensions having been fixed in terms of pounds? We know that pounds do not purchase to-day as much as they did at the time the previous Acts were passed. There may also be adjustments that experience has shown to be necessary, but in the main the reason for this Bill is, I understand, the alteration in the purchasing power of the £. That involves a principle that seems to me to preclude any possibility of one saying that no change will be necessary in the future. We may have to make a change—we do not know—but I would like to be clear that that is the main foundation for this Bill.
One wonders, if my assumption is correct, whether it would be legitimate to make a reduction in the pension, if by any remote chance there was a substantial improvement in the value of the £ in terms of goods. If, in justice to these unfortunate Servicemen who suffered disability and lost or had impaired their means of livelihood, they are entitled to a pension and if it is going to be on a sliding scale for all time, then with changing circumstances must it not slide either up or down according to a change in values? I put this to the Minister because I am not clear whether it is his opinion that the previous pensions, given at the time the former Bills were brought in, were then adequate and that this is brought in to bring them up to the scale to fit to-day's circumstances.
In regard to Senator Anthony's query, may I say that, in this particular measure, the number of people engaged does not arise. The only people we are dealing with are those who were disabled through wounds or illness attributable to or aggravated by service. The purpose of this Bill is to increase those pensions by, roughly, the equivalent of the cost-of living increase, to equate them or keep them in step with the increased wages or salaries given to civil servants and others.
With regard to Senator Orpen's question, as to whether this is to be an up and down scale, whether, in the very, very remote possibility of the cost of living dropping below what it was in 1924, the pensions will be reduced, all I can say in answer to that is, to answer for myself, that it would take a much braver man than I am, in the event of that possibility arising, to reduce the pension.