Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jul 1953

Vol. 42 No. 9

Army Pensions Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This Bill is an extensive one, but as it has already been so fully discussed in the Dáil and has received so much publicity in the Press, I feel that it will be unnecessary for me to delay the Seanad with a long discourse on its provisions. It results largely from the consideration by the Government of the representations which have been made by Deputies, Senators, organisations representing the Old I.R.A. and ex-servicemen for improvements in the existing Army pensions code and it represents the full extent to which, in the present financial circumstances, the Government have found themselves able to go in their desire to meet these representations as far as possible. The Bill does, in fact, provide substantial benefits in a number of ways which I will outline briefly.

The existing Army Pensions Acts make certain provision for the dependent relatives of those who were killed or executed during the 1916-1923 period, or who died as a result of wounds received or disease contracted during that period. The Government have decided to provide in this Bill for increases in the allowances at present payable to those relatives, and, in particular, to recognise in a special way, the position of the relatives of deceased persons who, having had pre-Truce service, died during the 1916-1923 period or died within four years from wounds or disease attributable to their military service during that period. As I indicated to the Dáil, the death of a person within the four years period from wound or disease is being regarded as meriting the same consideration as if the person had been executed or killed outright during the period from April, 1916, to September, 1923. The enhanced allowances which will now be payable— generally as from 1st January 1953—to the relatives of the deceased persons to whom I have been referring are set out in Part II of the Bill. A widow, a parent, a sister or a permanently invalided brother may benefit under this part, although, of course only one allowance will, as at present, be payable in respect of any deceased person. In the case of a widow the allowance will be £250 a year; in the case of a parent, £180 a year, and in the case of a widowed or unmarried sister or a permanently invalided brother, £125 a year. There will be a dependency test for brothers and sisters. These allowances represent a considerable increase on those payable under the existing Acts, but I am sure that the Government's decision to provide for these enhanced allowances will commend itself to every member of the Seanad.

In addition to making provision for those allowances the Bill provides, at Part III, for increases in the pensions and allowances payable under the existing Acts. Under the Army Pensions (Increase) Act, 1949, certain of those pensions and allowances have already been increased. Later, by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950, the pensions and superannuation of the various classes of State pensioners, such as civil servants, to which the Act related, were increased according to a scale which is now set out in Section 12 of the present Bill.

Part III of the Bill is rather difficult, because it refers back to a large number of the provisions of the existing Acts, but what is being done, in effect, is to take the pensions and allowances as they were before they were increased by the increase Act of 1949, and to increase them by the appropriate sum in accordance with the scale as laid down in Section 12. Where a pension was not increased at all by the increase Act of 1949, it will now be increased by the full appropriate sum and where there was an increase in 1949 which did not equal the appropriate sum as we are now considering it, there will be a further increase up to the appropriate sum. A number of pensions and allowances were increased by the full appropriate sum in 1949, and these will not, of course, be further increased by this Bill.

There is a ceiling of £450 a year, beyond which pensions under the Army Pensions Acts, or combination of such pensions with Defence Forces service pensions will not be increased, and where pensions are related to pay, as is the case, for instance, with the disability pensions payable to officers who left the Forces after 1st October, 1924, the pensions will not be increased beyond the figure which would represent the pension payable to an officer of similar rank and service who was serving on 2nd September, 1946. These conditions already apply to the pensions payable to the other classes of State servants to which the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950, apply. The increases now provided for in the Bill will operate as from the 1st January, 1953.

I should perhaps mention particularly that the allowances of £100 a year at present payable to sisters of the signatories of the Proclamation of 1916 are being increased to £250 a year, and I might also at this stage say that, in Section 45, provision is made for new allowances of £125 a year for certain children of the signatories. We are also, by Section 25 of the Bill, providing for enhanced allowances for the widows and children of members of the Defence Forces who are killed on duty, or die within four years of wounds received on duty. The ordinary allowances payable to such dependents are set out in Section 27, but, in the special cases I have mentioned, these will, under Section 25, be increased by 50 per cent.

The existing Acts provide for additional married pensions, subject to certain conditions as to the date of marriage, for persons who are in receipt of pensions in respect of wounds or disease attributable to military service. Speaking in a general way, in order to be eligible for a married pension, a person must have been married on the date of his wound or on the date on which he was discharged suffering from disease. Where a person dies while in receipt of a married pension, his widow and children are eligible for certain allowances. The Government have now decided, in the case of persons who had pre-truce service, to extend the statutory dates of marriage for the purposes of married pensions and widow's and children's allowances; and the date which has been decided upon, and now provided for in Part IV of the Bill, is 9th December, 1932, that is, the day before the Army Pensions Act, 1932, became law. The decision will apply to all disablement pensioners under the Acts of 1923, 1927 and 1932, and to their widows and children. The bringing forward of the marriage date will benefit a considerable number of disablement pensioners who are not at present in receipt of married pensions and also a large number of widows and children who are not now eligible for allowances because, owing to the date of marriage, the deceased husband had not a married pension at the time of his death.

I next come to Part V of the Bill which relates to special allowances. Senators are no doubt aware that these allowances are payable to persons who gave pre-truce service and who are, owing to age or infirmity, incapable of self-support. Almost 3,000 of these allowances are now being paid. A number of new provisions relating to special allowances is contained in Part V. In the first place, pensioners under the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Acts are being made eligible for these allowances. Secondly, the maximum allowances are, in the case of persons under 70 years of age. being increased by £26 a year for persons eligible for the unmarried rate and by £33 10s. a year for persons eligible for the married rate. I should explain that persons of the age of 70 or over have already received considerable benefit by having military service pensions, disability pensions, special allowances or any combination of them up to £80 a year ignored as means for old age pension purposes and by having old age pensions completely ignored as means for special allowances purposes. The increased allowances now proposed for persons under 70 are, therefore, called for in order to give some corresponding degree of benefit to them.

Part V also enables the Minister to consider, in cases of hardship, a further application within 12 months from a person who has been refused a special allowance or who has had an allowance terminated. Up to the present the Minister has had no discretion in this matter and a person, on an allowance being refused or terminated, had to wait for 12 months before being able to make a fresh application. I should emphasise that it is not intended that there should be any general departure from the 12 months' rule. The new provision is, as I said, intended for cases of hardship.

I should perhaps mention, as I did in the Dáil, that the joint directions of the Ministers for Defence and Finance governing the assessment of means for special allowance purposes are being amended so as to enable the first £30 of a military service pension or a disability pension or combination of them to be ignored as means in the cases of persons under 70 years of age and to provide for revised methods of assessment of the earnings of children under 18 and also as regards transfers of property by applicants for special allowances.

Part VI contains a number of miscellaneous provisions which are explained in the memorandum which accompanied the Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them now. I have, in fact, confined myself to a general review of the principal provisions of the Bill. If any further explanation of particular sections is required, I shall be glad to give it. I hope, however, that what I have said will have been sufficient to show the Seanad that the Bill marks a considerable advance on the provision of the existing Acts and that the Government have made some effort to accede to the requests made to them from the various interested sources.

I agree with the Minister that the Bill represents a considerable improvement, based very largely, I think, on the fall in the value of money. Some of the things done are extremely welcome, indeed, to men with pre-Truce service and to the dependents of the people who died in pre-Truce periods. While that is so, the Bill is one of the very worst examples we have had of legislation by reference. I wonder whether anybody could answer questions offhand about this Bill? I wonder whether the Minister, having a brief, could answer any questions about the Bill, or could anybody alive answer such a question? I doubt it very much.

After a lapse of 30 years, one would imagine that it would have been possible to make some arrangement whereby a reasonably well-educated person, by reading a document, could tell a person what pension he is entitled to. We have not yet reached that position. One who understands a good deal about pre-Truce service, Army Acts and Pensions Acts could get this Bill and fail in an effort to tell a particular person what he is entitled to. For example, in Section 2 there are nine separate Acts mentioned, and Heaven knows how many sections are mentioned later on.

I am not saying that it is the fault of this particular Minister, but the situation whereby there is no code or no consolidation of these Pensions Acts makes it very difficult to discuss them. I understand that the general position is one of great difficulty and that it is difficult even for the Department of Defence to determine what a pension is. I have heard, for example, of high-ranking officers who are being paid a pension without prejudice because they do not know, nor can anybody tell them, what precise pension they are entitled to. They are taking the pension and keeping their fingers crossed and hoping that the final decision will give them more than they have been receiving. If it is less that would be very serious.

I know the Minister's arguments will be the same—they always are—that this Bill has been given careful consideration and so on. It should be possible to make this matter, which is of interest to so many people, comparatively simple. Not only is the Bill itself not simple but the memoranda circulated with it—and memoranda are usually of a helpful nature in explaining matters—do not make it any clearer to me.

Having said that, I entirely agree that the Minister has made a bona fide effort to improve the situation. Having regard to the system, the coils and the involutions in which he finds himself, he is doing the best he can. I feel that one of the jobs the Seanad might be called upon to do—it has plenty of time—is to consolidate all these pensions provisions. That might reasonably be referred to us and it would be an immense improvement. There may be a few points of detail in the Bill which have to be dealt with but the Bill in its main provisions and intentions is sound and I agree with it.

I think it would be ungenerous for anyone to cavil at this Bill. We know that the Bill is a long time overdue. I, for one, would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for having introduced it and I should like to join in the expressions of appreciation made in the other House in regard to this matter and with the sentiments expressed by Senator Hayes. I also agree with Senator Hayes that it is practically impossible for any human being really to understand the Bill. It should be a lawyer's paradise. In connection with the section dealing with interpretations alone it would take the best part of one's lifetime to read them.

In so far as the Bill is an effort to improve the conditions of the people concerned, people who probably deserved earlier recognition, it is to be welcomed. No matter how perfect a Bill may be you will find many people who will not be satisfied. The members of the Old I.R.A. Pensions Committee are not satisfied with certain sections of the Bill. They object, for example, to the limitations stipulated. The pension of the widows of people whose deaths occurred later than 1925 and 1927 is affected. The Old I.R.A. Pensions Committee say that the limitation in regard to dates should be extended. I presume that the Minister has been approached on this matter because I think he referred to it in the other House.

The Old I.R.A. Pensions Committee also make the case that the increase in regard to wound and disability pensions is inadequate. They require at least an increase of 100 per cent. When the pensions were originally granted in 1923, the cost of living stood at 57 points and it is now 127. Although I am putting up this case, I am sure the Minister has an answer to it. Many of us have been critical of the high Budget, so it would be at least an anachronism if I were to plead now for higher spending. In this particular case you have a diminishing cost because a number of people are dying off each year and there will be fewer and fewer as time goes on. That applies to many pensions, though not to all.

I would also point out that there are inconsistencies in the grants and variations in the percentages. Certain officers get 80 per cent., while other officers with greater disabilities get 100 per cent. The people concerned want to know why the provision of allowances for the widow of a man who died in receipt of a wound or a disability pension is confined to those who were married before 1932. I have tried to read the Bill and it seems to me that that clause still applies. I thought the Minister might have amended the Bill, but I cannot see that he has done so.

There is another matter, but I am not sure that it arises on this Bill. Last night a letter appeared in the Evening Mail from the widow of a man whom we all honour and respect. She claims there was a cut in her pension since December, 1950. I do not want to mention the name, as the Minister can see the letter for himself and it is not a matter which I should like to discuss in public. If the statement made by the widow is true, I think none of us would care to have that happen. I hope the Minister will investigate the matter and see that if by any chance an injustice has been done it will be rectified.

I again congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Bill, although it is long overdue. Everybody will not be satisfied with it, but it is a step forward. It will give the men a chance of a better and happier life. They deserved it long ago and anyone who would cavil at the Minister's gesture would be unworthy of membership of this or the other House.

I would like to express my approval of the Bill and to congratulate the Minister on introducing it. In common with those people directly concerned and who hope to benefit by the provisions in the Bill, I know what it is about; but I confess that I am at a loss to find out the various benefits that it means to confer or the extent of the grievances that it means to correct. As Senator Hayes pointed out, it is a complicated document. One would need to go into the Library and go over the provisions of at least nine Acts, extending from 1923 to 1939; and by the time any layman would have done that he would suffer from a very severe headache. Men of the legal profession may treat that class of research as part of the day's work, but we who come into contact with those who individually and collectively carried on an agitation that has led to the introduction of the present Bill will be at a loss to explain the extent to which it goes to remedy their grievances.

The White Paper accompanying the Bill is equally complicated. It should have been possible to provide a simple memorandum for members of both Houses of the Oireachtas that would give an idea as to what the Bill really proposes to do. It would give information on the matter, not alone to them, but to the people who are looking forward to benefit.

Though it is difficult to find out the extent to which the Bill remedies grievances, there are certain outstanding features which prove it does not go quite far enough in certain very deserving cases. In the case of the provision made for the dependents of those who died from injuries received in action or who died as a result of participation in hostilities, those who died later than 1925, and in some cases 1927, are to be left out of consideration. I think that is a flaw in the Bill.

Another flaw, to my mind, is the fixing of a time limit of 12 months for the making of claims and leaving no provision for making an appeal. I hope it may be possible to amend the Bill to meet these points.

We owe a debt of gratitude as a whole to those responsible for bringing about the wide measure of freedom that the country enjoys. No one who realises that would feel in any way embarrassed by shouldering any burden, no matter what financial burdens the country has to bear, in order adequately to express that debt. None of us would shirk an addition to that burden in order that adequate return could be made to those people for the unselfish service they gave. I trust that the Bill will operate as soon as possible, and that under it many of the grievances will be removed. In a few short years, the people that this Bill provides for will have passed away and gone to a greater reward; but while they are with us they are deserving of the best we can do for them.

I would like to join with previous speakers in congratulating the Minister on bringing in this Bill. It is unfortunate that it is belated, that it has taken 31 years to do justice to the dependents of those who lost their lives or paid the supreme sacrifice in the struggle for independence. This is really the first reasonable or generous effort to cater for them. It will not please everybody, and there will be still some snags, but it is a reasonably generous measure, and I certainly welcome it.

I do not agree with some of the speakers that this Bill will prove a Chinese puzzle to anyone. Most people affected by it will very quickly know what their rights are under it. I do not see that there is any great difficulty, if one had time to go through it, in seeing where one stands.

The great objection I have is to Section 3. I agree there should be a time limit, and possibly 1927 is a reasonable year at which to draw the line; but there will be isolated cases—I know some of them—of people whose health was impaired and broken down and who passed away only within the past few years. I think the Minister did give an undertaking in the other House that he would look into that section and see what he could do about it. I hope he will be able to take some powers to deal with exceptional cases of hardship with which he will find himself faced when the Bill becomes law. I again congratulate the Minister and repeat that the Bill is a reasonably generous effort.

This is an even more expeditious handling of the Bill than that for which I praised the Dáil. I feel certain that Senators are influenced by the fact that the sooner this measure passes through both Houses the sooner it becomes law. I have no doubt also that Senators will have noticed, in the course of their reading of the Bill, that in certain circumstances allowances will not become available to the recipients until the Bill actually becomes an Act. Therefore, the plea I made in the other House and the plea I am making now is on behalf of that class of person who will not be entitled to retrospective payment to the beginning of this year but who will be enabled to secure payment from the date the Bill becomes an Act. That is the only reason why I make any plea for expedition and it is the reason why I now express my gratitude to the Seanad for the speed with which they have taken the Second Stage.

I certainly agree that the Bill is a complex one. It is built up on nine other complex Acts, and when you have to deal with it by reference to those Acts it is only natural that the Bill would be as difficult as Senators realise it is. The fact remains that I could see no way out of the situation which confronted us other than to include fully the sections of the previous Acts which are now only referred to. If we had approached the problem from that point of view there can be no question but that the Bill which Senators would have had in their hands, instead of being the fairly compact document it is, would be a voluminous document which would have been no easier to follow.

Senator McCrea hit the nail on the head when he said that this Bill will be thoroughly understood by those who will benefit from it. Naturally they will make certain that they will get the information from their Deputies or from other people competent to give it to them. Probably Deputies and Senators will be their main source of information, and if there is any particular section to which a Deputy or Senator has to refer, it will be easy for him to consult any previous Act which may be mentioned in it. Here, where we have all the amenities that can be afforded to us in the way of an excellent Library, it is not too difficult to obtain previous Acts, to pick out the particular section and relate one to the other, thus making the matter clear. However, in its present form it is a very complex document, and to quite a large number of people must be difficult to follow.

Senator O'Donnell made reference to a letter published in one of last evening's newspapers. The letter was brought to my attention and, while I have no information at the moment, I presume that the cut referred to in the letter was in relation to the recovery of income-tax. No official cut has been made in any pension, so I can only assume it has something to do with the recovery of income-tax and that possibly a sum of money was retained in that connection.

If I properly understood the query raised by Senator O'Donnell as to the reasons for the percentages, 80 per cent. and 100 per cent., I would explain that they represent the extent of disease or the wound or the degree of disablement brought about by the disease or the wound. It does not represent anything in the nature of class distinction, if that was in the Senator's mind.

Reference was made to the marriage date. Heretofore a man became eligible for a married pension under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923, 1927 and 1932, if he was married on the date on which he received the wound or was discharged on account of disease. As a result of that, a number were disqualified for married pension. Not many of those who were fighting at that time were married. Most of them married after the cease-fire order. If the man was married when he received the wound or if he died within a certain period after that and was married, his widow became eligible for the widow's allowance. We thought that that could be extended somewhat and when we set out to see to what degree it could be extended we naturally had to have reference to the Acts involved. The one which we found to be most relevant to the situation was the 1932 Act. That Act was brought in by the present Government and was the last of those which dealt with the 1916-23 period with regard to wounds or disease attributable to service. From that point of view we decided that the 1932 Act was the most appropriate Act and we fixed the marriage date by reference to the date of the passing of that particular Act. That is the explanation of what might appear a peculiar date, in the middle of December, 1932.

Senator Ruane made reference to a time limit of 12 months. Actually, of course, there has been a time limit always in all these Acts. There must be a time limit, but in the case of the special allowances and in the case of application for medals which would permit an individual to secure a special allowance we have extended the date by another 12 months. I know that it has been argued in the other House: "Why have a time limit at all?" and there may be a case for that, but there is also quite a good case against it. I feel that there should be a time limit from the point of view of making people come along and clear up the situation that has existed over so many years. I think that, as regards military service pensions, we have extended the time limit on no less than 16 occasions, and one would feel that there must be some finality to a situation of that kind. However, as I told the Deputies in the Dáil, if there is any strong desire at any time to extend this, it will always be very easy for a Minister to provide for an extension, either by way of legislation or in whatever other way is appropriate.

I think that those are all the matters that were raised as regards the pensions. I have no doubt that there may be other complexities which will arise, both in the minds of Senators and Deputies, but I am sure that Senators who have had communication with the officials of the Department of Defence will be the first to admit that any queries made to these officials are not only courteously received but are very expeditiously and accurately answered; and I feel certain that any Deputy or Senator who may at any time find himself in difficulties with respect to this Bill and who may not be in a position at the time to make reference to the appropriate Acts referred to here will find that a telephone inquiry will result in the matter being cleared up without delay.

I thank the Senators for the manner in which they have dealt with this Second Stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Top
Share