Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1953

Vol. 41 No. 7

Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

This Bill proposes to amend the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1949, in a number of respects, the principal amendment being that which proposes to increase the present rates of pensions as from the 1st January, 1953. Section 2 of the Bill deals with this matter, and it will be seen that the section sets out a scale of increases relative to the amount of a pension. I should explain that this scale of increases follows the lines of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1950, which provided for increases in the superannuation of State pensions generally and which, accordingly, the Government regarded as also being appropriate to military service pensions.

That, as I have said, is the principal provision of the Bill but it also contains a number of other important ones to which I may refer briefly. The first of these is in Section 3 which provides, in effect, that members of the permanent force serving on the 1st January, 1953 and in possession of military service certificates, may have military service pensions paid to them currently, instead of having to await retirement.

The present position in this regard, I should explain, is that a member of the permanent force does not receive his military service pension until he retires or is discharged and his pension is based on the rank then held by him, or held on the 1st September, 1924, whichever rank is the higher. The option now provided will enable the members of the permanent force concerned—there are about 100 of them— to decide for themselves whether they will now take pensions based on their current ranks or await retirement or discharge and take the pensions to which they would be entitled under the Act of 1924.

Section 4 also relates to the exercise of an option. In accordance with the general principle governing superannuation, two pensions cannot be paid in respect of the same period of time, and, accordingly, where persons had periods of service which could be reckoned either for the purposes of military service pensions or for the purposes of superannuation, they were allowed, under the Acts of 1924 and 1934, to surrender their military service pensions and to receive enhanced superannuation or they could retain their military service pensions, in which event, service for superannuation purposes was appropriately reduced. Actually, only a small number of persons, of whom, I understand, only about 12 are still living, surrendered their military service pensions. The increased rates of military service pension, and the removal of abatement to which I will refer later, may result in some people wishing to change their original option, and Section 4 will enable them to do so.

Section 5 is intended to adjust the position of a few persons who, having been notionally discharged as noncommissioned officers, without any actual break in service, for the purpose of being appointed to commissioned rank, found themselves, owing to the wording of the Act of 1924, awarded pensions based on their non-commissioned rank and are still in receipt of these pensions, although they eventually retired in commissioned ranks which would have made their pensions much higher. Section 5 proposes that these pensions should be revoked and that the persons concerned should be awarded pensions on the same basis as officers generally.

Section 6 provides for the extension of the date for the receipt of petitions under the Act of 1949 from persons who were refused military service certificates. I propose also to make regulations which will give persons who have not already applied for military service certificates a fresh opportunity of doing so.

Section 7 relates to a matter which has always been a cause of great dissatisfaction—that is, the abatement of military service pensions in respect of remuneration, pensions or allowances payable out of public moneys or by a local authority. Under Section 7, this abatement will be discontinued as from the 1st January, 1953, and the section also provides that, except in certain specified cases, a military service pension will not affect, to the detriment of the pensioner, qualification for, or the receipt or amount of, other payments.

I think I have now explained all the provisions of the Bill, and when I state that the cost of the various proposals amounts to approximately £250,000 a year, I am sure that Senators will appreciate that, in the present conditions of financial stringency, the Government have done everything that could reasonably be expected, to meet the claims that have been made from time to time with regard to military service pensions and the conditions governing them.

Professor Hayes

I think this Bill should be welcomed. Apart from its provisions with regard to giving certain people options which might improve their financial position, it has two main features. One is to increase pensions in accordance—to some extent at least—with the falling value of money. The Minister, or perhaps I should say more correctly, the Department of Finance, has chosen and insisted on a certain system with regard to the Civil Service and nothing can be done about that. The other point is the abolition of the abatement system. That has given rise to very grave dissatisfaction. Originally, I think in 1924, the idea was that people with active service—it was confined to men who had served in the Army, and had pre-Truce service—should get a pension or a position. It was thought that if they got a position under the Government or in the service of a local authority that that should involve an abatement in their pensions. However, like many another Act of Parliament, that system worked out very inequitably; for serving Army officers and men, for example, and also for people affected when semi-State bodies like the E.S.B. were established.

When the E.S.B. was established, for example, the electricity department of the Dublin Corporation was transferred to it, and one man came to me to ask whether I thought the E.S.B. came under the 1924 Act and whether he was now paid out of public funds. I thought myself he was not, although my opinion did not count. It was submitted to the Attorney-General, at that time Mr. J.A. Costello, I think, and he decided that they were not public funds within the meaning of the Act. The result was that if you were in the housing department of the Dublin Corporation your pension was abated, but if you were in the electricity department and were transferred to the E.S.B. your pension was not abated.

I take it that the same anomalies rose with regard to Board na Móna and other such semi-State bodies. I think on the whole that the Minister is perfectly right and that this Bill will prove a great relief. It will remove very great dissatisfaction by simply abolishing the abatement clause altogether. That part of the Bill, by no means the most costly of the £250,000 which the various proposals will immediately cost—the cost, of course, will decrease in time—is very worthwhile.

There are two real difficulties with regard to the whole system of military pensions. The recipients in the nature of things are passing away and the number of pensions is getting smaller. But some of the people who have these pensions are for various reasons entirely dependent on them and deserving of great sympathy. It is difficult to see what can be done in these circumstances. A great many, of course, are not dependent on them and they were never intended to be something on which people could live in any kind of comfort. That, plus the definition of active service, causes all the trouble. This increase and the abolition of the abatement system does, I think, solve two problems which were giving great trouble. The Bill, while not giving complete satisfaction, is a step in the right direction. For that reason I welcome the Bill and hope it will get an easy passage.

Mr. Colgan

I join with Senator Hayes in welcoming the Bill. I think the Government, and particularly the Minister, are to be congratulated in these times of financial stringency, as he put it himself, in meeting the case which has been put to him in various forms over the years. There was much dissatisfaction among Old I.R.A. people at the falling value of pensions and I felt that something should be done to secure that people of the type mentioned by Senator Hayes, who were depending on their pensions for a livelihood, should get special consideration.

In that regard I will be forgiven for mentioning the 1916 men. Pádraig Mac Piarais, from the Post Office, placed these men as a charge on the nation, to see that they were cared for. We have criticised people in the past for their neglect of Irish patriots and have criticised previous generations for allowing them to live their lives in squalor. I would like to ensure that this generation will see that no 1916 man will want. In the past, not many, perhaps, but some of these men died in poorhouses and I have always felt that that was a reflection on us.

I do not believe any Old I.R.A. man will object to my singling them out for mention. It is not easy to be selective when you are bringing in legislation, but I feel there is an obligation on us to see that no 1916 man is left in want. He should be sure of a livelihood in frugal comfort. That was not so sure before, but the position is somewhat improved now. I know the Minister personally over a long number of years and I feel that I am pushing an open door. His concern for the Old I.R.A. has always been accepted by all Old I.R.A. men, no matter to what brand of politics they may belong. I make the plea that there is an obligation on each one of us to see that 1916 men are not left in the lurch.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I wish to welcome the Bill, which is a more or less belated effort to remedy the grievances of many people who deserve well of the State and who have been suffering from those grievances for some time. From the very start I was one of the big number that never fell in with the idea of pensions, since through a memorable association with many of those who enjoy pensions, and who deserve them, I know that not one of those at the time when they gave service, ever dreamed of getting recognition of this kind from the State.

As it has come, there were certain grievances or certain weaknesses in the system from the start, one of which was the difference in pensions paid to volunteers of different ranks. Many of us know that the line that divided the officer from the private in several cases was a very narrow one indeed, and whereas the increases now given to those who had commissioned rank in the Volunteers are fairly appreciable, to those who are receiving the lower rate of pension an increase of even 50 per cent. at present money values is not much to boast about. However, I believe this is an honest effort by the Minister to remedy those grievances, and I welcome it as such.

One very good point in the Bill is the abolition of the means test. I trust that the Bill as it is will be accepted by those for whom it was intended as the best effort the Government can make at the present time. Anything that can be done for these men would not be too much. They are gradually dying away. In a few years very few of them will be with us, and every section of the community aware of their service would like to see that the service they gave us and the risks they freely took in a very stirring time, that made it possible for this House and the other House to meet, would be generously rewarded.

Mr. O'Donnell

I wish to join with other Senators in expressing appreciation of the Bill. In particular, I would like to join with Senator Colgan in his appeal on behalf of Cumann na Sean-Óglach 1916. Theirs is a particular case and I cannot see mentioned anywhere in the Bill whether any special attention has been paid to their appeal that the minimum pension payable to 1916 veterans should be in the region of £100 a year. I did not hear the Minister refer to any particular association, but I would appeal to him and ask him to realise that in these days £100 is not a terrible lot of money. If at all possible, something should be done, and he should look with favour on this point and should grant the request made to him to give the maximum amount they request for this dwindling number of 1916 veterans remaining each year. One hundred pounds is not a lot nowadays, and those in receipt of that pension, and who need it, should get special consideration.

I would ask the Minister if he has given the plea of the 1916 Men's Organisation his consideration, if he can agree to their suggestion and, if he cannot agree, why he cannot. I know from speaking to the Minister that he is as much in sympathy with the idea as I am myself and that if he could do it he would. Therefore, I am asking him if he did and, if not, why he has not done so.

Mr. Hawkins

It is now almost 30 years since the first Military Service Pensions Bill was introduced in Dáil Eireann. Looking back at that particular time, it is probably more easy to understand now and appreciate the provisions of that Bill, much as we might regret many of those provisions, because to my mind they have contributed in no small way to many of the difficulties that have arisen over the long period of years that has elapsed since the first introduction of these pension schemes.

We all welcome the present Bill, but I think it should be made clear to those people outside that this is not a Bill to amend in general the Military Service Pensions Acts. Provision is made under Section 5 for people who have already made application, that where new circumstances arise or new information becomes available to substantiate their claim, they may put it forward; but we are not now discussing the terms of remuneration or award that should be given to those who gave service down the years. The Bill simply provides for an increase of a certain percentage for those who are already in receipt of a pension, and for none other. We welcome that increase, as it is just on a par with the increases already given to various other sections, to the Civil Service and to public servants in general.

I also join with the House in congratulating the Minister on the introduction of Section 7. This abatement of military service pensions has given rise to very serious grievances down through the years, and very justifiable grievances. After all, these were the people who, by their efforts, established the very services in which they afterwards found themselves employed. Because they had so contributed to the setting up of these services and afterwards found they were employees, they are debarred from getting the remuneration they would be entitled to were they in ordinary employment. There is also provision in the Bill for those who, for one reason or another, find new information at their disposal now, and there is therefore an extension of the time for the reconsideration of applications.

It is not fair, on the introduction of a Bill of this kind, to taunt the Minister or comment on the provision made for the men of any particular section. We should have regard to the very limited terms of the Bill before us, that is, to the fact that it deals with those already in receipt of pensions and increases them by a certain percentage, and does not deal with others.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I would like to welcome the Bill and support the remarks made by other Deputies in regard to the 1916 I.R.A. men. The Government would be well advised to look into their case. Looking back historically on it, we can see what great service they rendered to the country. Very few of them are left now, and every day the number is growing smaller. It would be well if some arrangement could be entered into which would make sure that they would be well looked after. That is the least we should do for them.

There is one section of the Old I.R.A. to whom, so far as I can see, the provisions of this Bill do not apply. I refer to those people who are in receipt of special allowances under the 1947 Act. These generally are very poor people who have got these allowances because of extreme poverty or disability; but these very small allowances are being abated on account of the fact that some of these men are receiving national health benefit or a pension of some description. I urge that the same terms as applied to Old I.R.A. pensions and pensions in general should be applied to these allowances and the same thing should be done for those receiving these allowances as is being done in the case of pensioners generally.

Mr. Hartney

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this measure. It is a measure which has the good-will and support of all fairminded people, both inside and outside the Oireachtas. I appreciate that the Minister would be only too glad to do more for these people, but he had to draw the line somewhere. I feel, however, that there is one section whose cases might be reexamined. I refer to those in receipt of very small pensions up to £100. There is to be a 50 per cent. increase, but there is a very big difference between the £100 and the £20 man. Some of these men with small pensions are men who gave very good service, although they did not hold rank. When it came to the computing of their pensions, they were at a loss to a certain extent, although, as I say, they gave good service.

It will be agreed that these Old I.R.A. men are in the evening of their lives. It has already been said that their numbers are diminishing, so that whatever money is involved will not carry on ad infinitum. The expenditure will come to an end, and, as I think, all too soon. I thought the Minister might have started with the lower pensions, that they might have got 100 per cent. increase, and the Minister could then have moved down from 100 to 50 per cent. in the case of the men with £100 pensions. Such an arrangement would be very welcome in the case of these men with small pensions who are victims of circumstance, owing to the way in which the regulations were devised.

This affords an opportunity of doing something extra for them and I should like the Minister to see if it would not be possible for him to improve their lot. I know some of these men and I know the services they gave. I know also that they were the victims of circumstances, and I make a special appeal to the Minister to see if it would not be possible to amend this Bill, even at this late stage, because a man with £20 or £25 pension who gets 100 per cent. increase is not being put in as good a position he was in when he first qualified and it would not involve any burden on the taxpayers which they could not bear.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Cuirim fáilte agus fiche roimh an mBille seo. Tá sé ag teastáil ós na daoine a thug a seirbhísí don Stáit in am an chatha go ndéanfaimis ár ndícheall dóibh agus go dtiubhraimis meadú anois dóibh do réir méaduithe an chostais bheatha. Tá an oiread sin ráite cheana i bhfábhar an Bhille nach mian liomsa aon rud a chur leis an méid atá ráite. Tuigeann gach éinne cad tá i gceist agus is maith liom go bhfuil glactha leis an mBille ó gach taobh den Tigh.

I, too, with other Senators, welcome this Bill, and I congratulate the Government and the Minister on doing what is right for the members of the Old I.R.A.—increasing their pensions in accordance with the general increases that have taken place in the State. There is, however, one point I should like to have cleared up. Under this measure, it will be open to people to make fresh applications within a period of six months after the passing of the Act, and it will also be open to people whose claims have already been turned down to have these claims reexamined on making a petition. I should like to know whether a person who made an application early on and who, as could happen, is dissatisfied with the way in which he filled his first form, will have the option of making a new application under this measure. I have heard people say, having made their applications, that, if they were doing it again in the light of certain circumstances which, perhaps, they did not understand at first, they would do it better. Can a person whose claim has been turned down make an application de novo under this measure?

Mr. Traynor

Provided no award was made, it is permissible for an applicant to make a new application or petition. In cases where an award has been made the applicant is precluded from applying again.

Mr. Kissane

That is what I meant— where no award was given.

Mr. Meighan

I rise to emphasise what has been said by Senator Hartney with regard to these people with pensions of from £6 to £20. I know several of them and I can say that they are deserving of very special consideration, if it is possible to give it to them. The value of the pension originally awarded to them has declined because the £ of 1939 is now worth only 9/- and so the award of pensions like £6 and £10 was more an insult than anything else to people who suffered what a number of these men suffered. I am personally acquainted with people in my own area who gave very valuable service. The awards in some cases were very small. I will conclude by asking the Minister to give special consideration, if he can, to those men with very small pensions. I strongly urge that. A pension of £10, £13 or £16 per year, granted in 1943, is certainly worth very little to-day, having regard to the value of the £.

Mr. Commons

Like the other Senators, I welcome this Bill, but I am not a whole lot in agreement with the views of those who spoke in favour of the small pension classes. The person who held a certain rank was put off with a small pension of £10 or £12 per year. That was a very insignificant amount to offer anybody who was a member of the I.R.A. One wonders where the terrific difference lies as between the man who was allocated a pension of £225 per year and the man who was awarded a pension of only £10 per year.

We know that the commissioned rank were not bound as rigidly as the commissioned rank in the Regular Army. To my knowledge the men who held no rank at all other than that of an ordinary Volunteer gave their services as willingly as those who held a commission. They put themselves in as much danger, and in ambushes it was left, in many cases, to the initiative of the local Volunteers to act on their own if they saw an opportunity. Yet we find, when the pensions were issued, that unless a person held some sort of rank his pension was cut down.

It is unfortunate that this Bill does not give a greater concession to men in receipt of small pensions. Many of those people deserve higher pensions. We know that the ordinary Volunteers were interned and ill-treated during the pre-Truce and post-Truce periods. Their health was impaired and yet they were given a miserable pittance of only £8, £9, £10 or £12 per year. I think it was more of a bribe than anything else.

They should get something decent or no pension at all. Better still, they should have been offered a lump sum or a gratuity of some kind rather than be offered a miserable pension. Such a lump sum would be of some value to them. They should have been told: "Here is this lump sum for you as a slight reward for the services you have rendered, but we cannot consider paying you any pension after that." That would have been a fairer way of treating those people now in receipt of low pensions.

I think Senator Kissane made reference to a group of individuals whose applications for pensions were turned down. I am not sure whether this Bill makes any provision for them; I do not think it does. I do not know whether it is relevant or not for me to say something for those people. At any rate, I will take a chance. I have a fairly good memory of the people in my own locality who should or should not get pensions. As a boy, I saw quite a good deal of the I.R.A. passing through with a good number of the British forces on their heels. It amazes me at the present time to see people living in my own locality who took part in the struggle from the earliest period, and whose applications for pensions were not entertained at all. In many cases they were periods of 18 months and two years interned and were on hunger strike three or four years. Yet, when their applications for pensions went before the Pensions Board, they were turned down.

I think the active service regulation seems to be the bone of contention. That is no fault of the men in question. Anybody connected with the I.R.A. at the time knew well that the carrying of despatches was almost as dangerous as being engaged in actual conflict with the enemy. Everybody knew what the fate of a man was who was caught with a despatch in his pocket. Verbal despatches were not accepted with the same authority as written despatches. A person encountered a certain amount of danger in carrying despatches of any kind.

I have knowledge of cases where ambushes were arranged and everything made ready for an engagement. Through one cause or another, the whole thing was called off by some higher officer or from headquarters. The people were ready to make the attack on the enemy, but could not do so because of an order which came from headquarters. They were thus, through no fault of their own, deprived of active service.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that the Senator is widening the scope of the Bill somewhat.

Mr. Commons

I know that, Sir.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should keep strictly to Section 6 and he will be all right.

Mr. Commons

I do not want to widen the scope of the Bill any further in my appeal for those people. Before the Bill becomes law, I should like that the lower pension group be given more consideration. Even to increase a pension of £10 per year by 50 per cent. would be of very little use to anybody at the present time. It would be much better to give the people of whom I speak a gratuity and stop the pension altogether.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.