Vol. 45 No. 16
I move:—
That the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1956, prepared by the Minister for Defence, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act, 1932, and Section 4 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1938, and laid before the House on the 6th day of March, 1956, be confirmed.
The Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts, 1932 to 1949, empower me, as Minister for Defence, to prepare, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, pensions schemes for officers and men of the Army, and for members of the chaplaincy and nursing services. Section 4 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act of 1932 lays it down that any scheme so prepared shall not come into force unless and until it has been laid down before each House of the Oireachtas and has been confirmed by resolution of each such House.
The main purpose of the scheme now before the House is to provide increases in the retired pay of officers, in the pensions of non-commissioned officers and men and in gratuities payable to or in respect of both classes. These increases arise from Army pay increases which took effect as from 1st November, 1952, and the 1st November, 1955, and only those who were serving on these dates and who consequently got the benefit of such pay increases will qualify for increased benefits under this scheme. I should explain that the Army pensions schemes do not directly link the rates of retired pay or pension for officers and other ranks with their rates of pay at date of retirement or discharge. The rates laid down in the schemes for officers and other ranks are independent of changes in Army pay, with the result that, in order to give increases in pension to correspond with pay increases, specific provision by way of an amendment to the schemes must be made.
Article 4 of the scheme provides for new percentage increases by rank on the retired pay of officers who retired or were retired since 1st November, 1952, and before 2nd November, 1955, and further increases for those whose retirements took effect on or after the 2nd November, 1955. These percentages reflect the percentage increases in pay by rank since 1937, the year the principal scheme came into being.
Article 9 deals with a group of soldiers who served in the Survey Company of the Corps of Engineers but who were transferred to the Reserve in 1940 in order to take up appointments as civilians in the ordnance survey. This was part of a general scheme to get ordnance survey work established on a civilian basis. The soldiers concerned were all long-service men who had not got the minimum period of 21 years' army service necessary in order to qualify for pensions under the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme. Article 9 now waives the requirement in their case of the minimum of 21 years' service for pension and renders them eligible for pensions based on their actual Army service. The pension will not, however, be payable until the persons concerned will have retired from their civil posts in circumstances entitling them to awards under the Superannuation Acts.
Article 13 provides for increased rates of pension, including married pension, for N.C.O.s and men discharged on or after 1st November, 1952, and before 1st November, 1955, and further increases for those discharged on or after the latter date. These increases arise as a result of the pay increases granted as from the 1st November, 1952, and the 1st November, 1955, and reflect the percentage by which the rates of pay applicable as from these dates exceed the rates applicable as from September, 1946.
Article 14 provides for corresponding increases in the rates of gratuities payable to N.C.O.s and privates who are discharged or transferred to the Reserve, on or after the dates mentioned, in circumstances not entitling them to pensions.
I have explained only the principal provisions. If any Senator requires any further information, I shall be only too glad to give it.
I do not think there can be any disagreement with the proposal before the Seanad to-day in relation to the provision being made for an increase in the pay of retired members of the Army. I suppose that, in effect, it is an increase in their pension rates. While we are in agreement with the general principle involved in the Order, I do not know exactly why there should be something like discrimination between the N.C.O.s and the officers. I do not think I should say "discrimination" but I do not see why they should be considered on a different basis. Maybe I have misunderstood the Minister in that regard and, if I have, no doubt he will be in a position to correct me.
I should like to avail of this opportunity to say that it is a pity that the same generous consideration could not be extended to other people who rendered service to this country in difficult times. I refer to members of the Old I.R.A. who are in receipt of pensions. I know that the members of the Old I.R.A. who were in receipt of pensions got one increase some time ago, but, having regard to the increased cost of living, and so forth, I feel that that matter should be reconsidered. I realise that this is not the time to deal with such wide matters and that there could not be a wide discussion now. I welcome the provisions of the Order.
I should just like to support a point made by Senator Kissane. I should like to hear an explanation from the Minister for what appears to be perhaps a different basis of calculation of pension for non-commissioned ranks and for commissioned ranks. If I have understood the tables correctly, the increase for officers is established as a percentage —I notice sometimes that the bigger the salary, the bigger the percentage —and the superannuation granted in respect of the other ranks, privates, sergeants, and so forth, is expressed as a money sum. It is consequently very difficult for us here to assess, just how great, comparatively speaking, is the generosity involved in relation to these two different types of soldier. I would agree with Senator Kissane that anything that implied two different measures, as it were, would be a thing to be deprecated.
There is just one other point and it concerns the explanatory memorandum issued in relation to this scheme. It explains Article 9 in a way that, I am afraid, still does not quite come clear to my mind with reference to certain long-service soldiers of the Survey Company who were transferred to the Reserve in 1940. I take it I am right in assuming that they were compulsorily transferred to the Reserve. The Minister mentioned it in his opening remarks and said it was for the purpose of encouraging the ordnance survey mapping to be organised on a civilian basis. I think I am right in saying that these officers were compulsorily——
No.
This was a voluntary transfer?
Yes.
I see. The second point is that I understand the ordnance survey work done by these men was, in large measure, done for the benefit of the Department of Defence in those years. It was mentioned in this memorandum that these men were recalled to Army service in 1941. I take it that they were compulsorily called up?
Yes.
Further on in this explanatory memorandum, in the same paragraph, it refers to something the Minister explained. When it says that a person must have retired from his civilian post in circumstances entitling him to an award under the Superannuation Act, I think that means that he must have retired altogether—that he must have ceased work—before he receives such a pension award. I am not quite sure. There is apparently a discrepancy because it would appear that there are other members of the ordnance survey in various other branches of the Government service, who, being soldiers who had up to 21 years' Army service, are now permitted to draw a pension, despite the fact that they are still working. There would seem, at any rate, prima facie an element of injustice in preventing, under paragraph 3 of Section 9, certain officers from drawing a pension, because they are still working, while allowing some of their colleagues to draw pensions while still at work. It is prima facie an injustice to preclude the survey officers from getting a pension in circumstances which are not considered sufficient in the case of officers or men, who, having done their 21 years with the Army, are allowed to draw Army pensions and at the same time to continue in other employment.
I should like to ask the Minister why he has completely ignored the claim of the men who left the Army at the behest of the Minister in 1946. In my experience as an ex-soldier, I was paraded and asked to leave the Army as early as possible and so facilitate the powers that be to get the Army back to the establishment they wished to have. Those men who left the Army in 1946 have been brutally victimised since that time in relation to pension awards; and I, by virtue of who I am, am speaking for the 1922 soldier. There are plenty of soldiers out now with pensions of from 15/- to 16/- a week. I think the Minister ought to be reminded of that tragedy, in case he does not know of it already. The persons who are being catered for now are people who have been catered for already since 1951, 1953, 1954, all through the years. I am not objecting to these officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, although there is a peculiar desire on the part of legislators in this country to think of soldiers purely in the terms of officers. I should like the Seanad and the Dáil once in a while to think of the N.C.O.s and men, or as they are described in the Act, "other ranks".
These men are in a bad way and do need some help in relation to the pensions they are in receipt of; and I am sure the Minister will listen to me when I say that they are, in the main, being victimised by their acquiescence in accepting the direction of the Minister in 1946, and leaving the Army to get themselves sorted out into civilian life. In general, they are unorganised. No trade union can make any appeal for them. They have an organisation —the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen—that has no qualifications, other than social, to approach the Minister and ask that an appeal for these men be considered. I, as an exsergeant-major of the Defence Forces, feel that it is my job here in the Seanad to speak on behalf of these N.C.O.s and men and to try to get some little recognition for them.
In these days, when a raise of 2/- or 3/- in purchasing power in relation to the finances before 1939, is the equivalent of raising their pay by 6d. or 8d., I think we ought to forget once in a while the thousand-a-year people and think of the men who are cast into civilian life at 48 years of age, which is the period which they normally would have after 21 or 23 years' service in the Army. These men are being entirely neglected. Rather than go to any great length to embarrass anybody in this matter, I would make a special appeal for this House to ask the Minister to consider the men who left the Army in 1946. These are the men—although it may not be taken generally—who helped to form this State in 1922, but they are forgotten men. I would also agree with Senator Kissane that the men without whom nothing could be done are the men of the Old I.R.A. I would agree with whatever Senator Kissane would say to help these men; but I am particularly concerned to appeal that these N.C.O.s and men be encompassed in any increase of pensions the Minister would be considering now.
I make this final appeal to him. I believe that the Minister is aware of the conditions existing in these cases. I will finalise myself on this by saying that, assuming a man joins the Army at the age of 18, he will complete his 21 years when he is 39 or 40. An emergency occurs and he is retained in the service of the Army for six or more years. He finds himself, at the age of 46 or 47, unsuited to the labour market. These are the men I am appealing for. These are the men with 14/- or 15/- a week. Even though it be unusual, and even though the Department of Finance, which is closely associated with the Department of Defence, even though it may break down their peculiar barriers, give something to these men and forget the officers for a while it would be desirable. I appeal to the Seanad to ask the Minister, and I appeal to the Minister, to consider these men because they are waiting to see what he is going to do for them.
I support the statements of the previous speakers and I know some of those men who were asked to leave the Army in 1946. I am not speaking for the officers or for the brass-hats; I am talking about the rank-and-file members. They went out on very small pensions at that time. Mind you, the fact that they were in the Army was not such a great qualification for them when they were looking for jobs afterwards. I know of cases where two of these men applied for a job. They got the cold shoulder. They were asked what army they had belonged to. When they said it was the National Army, they did not get the job. I can assure you that, if they said they had belonged to the English Army, they probably would have got the job.
I agree with the last speaker that the Minister should consider the position of those men. The present men, who are being catered for, are not in a very bad position at the moment. They have been given a percentage increase which raises them far above the men I have in mind. I appeal to the Minister to think of those men. They are the men who stood in the gap of danger from 1922 until 1926.
I am very grateful for the manner in which this matter has been received. The comments are helpful. On the question raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington in regard to the claim of those people in the ordnance survey, first of all, let me say that we train them in the art and craft of maps. They did not remain with us for pensionable service. They were not entitled to anything. These vacancies arose and the posts were offered to them. They could either accept or reject them. Very properly and wisely, they accepted. They were very satisfied to get the appointments because they brought them into the Civil Service. I do not know if there is a retiring age for them, but I presume it is 65 years, the same as it is in the rest of the Civil Service.
What we propose to do under this scheme is to add this pension to their Civil Service pension when they get it, although we are not under any obligation to grant them a pension at all, because they had not reached pensionable service. There are other soldiers who served 16½ and 17 years who will be going out and they will get nothing. They do not get any pension because they have not the qualifying service. That is the explanation.
I think we are treating them rather generously and I take a poor view enough of the circular they sent round as if I were doing an injustice to them or the people who drafted the pensions scheme were doing an injustice to them. That is not so. This is a grant in regard to something to which they were not entitled under any scheme.
With regard to the matter of increase, this is a system which has applied to the Army, the Guards and everybody attached to the Civil Service in regard to pay and pension. When the Civil Service gets an increase in pay, automatically the percentage runs right through the whole system. This scheme is only giving effect to what is already an established practice.
But tradition dies a very hard death and there is no reason why we should not change it.
The fact that Senators have expressed an opinion that it should be changed is no harm at all to a Minister. Indeed, it is of value to him because he can go back and say: "This is what I was told when I proposed this. The Senators take a poor view enough of it."
Very poor.
I presumed that there was general agreement. With regard to the questions raised by Senators Carton and Kissane, I do not think the Old I.R.A. should come in here. God knows I have enough to deal with on this measure.
It is a headache.
I do not think we need bother about the matter. That will be another day's work. I am aware of the difficulties and the hardships imposed on ex-servicemen of both periods. Neither Government are unmindful of the service rendered to the State by the people who went out in 1946 when requested by the Government of the day. I can assure the House that the whole question of the general revision of amounts payable to former N.C.O.s and men is still under consideration. I have to plead guilty to this. I had expectations that I would be in a position to say to Senator Carton and the organisation which represents the national ex-servicemen that I would be able to give an answer before this, but circumstances over which I have no control prevented me from doing so, but I can assure all concerned that the matter is under very active consideration, and that is a very good phrase.
I heard it before.
I mean it. The matter is under active consideration at the moment, and, while I am not in a position to make an announcement in the matter at the moment, I hope I will be able to do so very, very soon.
With regard to the question of the revision of smaller pensions, nobody will deny that pensions of 15/- or 16/- a week are completely out of keeping with the present-day value of money and increased cost of living, but, unfortunately, like everything else, that whole question for the Army is linked up with school teachers and civil servants.
Except, Sir, when you want them to die for you.
I know that is true, but the civil servants say they have to die also. The whole matter is linked up with the wider question and if I were to get a decision on increasing Army pensions of 15/- or 16/-, then there would be good news for a great number of other people because school teachers and everybody else would be involved in the consideration on that big question. I cannot move any faster than any member of the column to which I am now attached.
The Minister is not afraid of change?
No.
The Minister will have to speed up the slowest vehicle in that column.
A sergeant-major has more opportunities to use both his voice and power than an officer has. He can be more explicit and implicit in his language than an officer can and the sergeant-major knows that well. The job of the commanding officer is to try to restrain the sergeant-major a little, if he can, but I am not trying to do that now. I can assure the House of that. The questions raised are important ones and I am fully aware of their importance and, if I might use the word, the equity of the claims made. As I say, I can only move as fast as the rest.
