Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Bill, 1968 (Certified Money Bill): Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Hilliard)

Retired pay, pensions and gratuities for or in respect of former members of the Permanent Defence Force (including the Army Nursing Service) and the Chaplaincy Service are prescribed by Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes which are made under the authority contained in the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act, 1932, as amended. Section 4 of that Act provides that no pension scheme shall come into force until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been confirmed by resolution of each House.

The Bill concerns two types of pension increases which can be described as "automatic". The first is an increase related to an increase in remuneration; in other words, when the remuneration is increased, the pension must also be increased. The second is what has come to be known as a "Budgetary" increase — the type of increase applicable to State pensioners generally and announced by the Minister for Finance in connection with a Budget.

Up to now the practice has been to give statutory effect to such increases by way of amendments to the Military Service Pensions Acts, the Army Pensions Acts, the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Acts and the MacSwiney (Pension) Acts, and by amending Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes.

These measures take up a certain amount of parliamentary time, and in the course of the debates on the Army Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1964, reference was made in this House to the desirability of simplifying the procedure for promulgating increases of the particular types I have mentioned.

The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1964, empowers the Minister for Finance to prescribe such increases by regulations, and it has been found possible to bring within its scope a number of the pensions for which the Minister for Defence is responsible. Consequently, Budgetary increases in military service pensions, Connaught Rangers pensions and the pension under the MacSwiney (Pension) Acts are being dealt with under that particular procedure. This machinery, however, was not adaptable for implementing increases in benefits under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes. Neither was it possible to bring within its ambit benefits under the Army Pensions Acts, but I hope in the near future to introduce an amendment of these Acts which will also enable increases to be provided for by regulations.

Accordingly, the object of this Bill is to achieve the desired simplification in procedure in so far as Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes are concerned by providing that a pension scheme which deals with increases of the specific types I have mentioned will not require confirmation by formal resolution of each House to bring it into force, but will come into force as provided in the scheme. Such a scheme would be laid before the House and would not be debated unless a resolution is moved for its annulment.

I should like to stress that this new procedure will apply only to Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes dealing with the two "automatic" types of increases mentioned. Any scheme relating to matters other than "automatic" increases will be subject to the existing procedure — that is to say, the scheme will not come into force until it has been confirmed by formal resolution of each House.

Professor Dooge

There will, I think, be general agreement with the principle of the Bill which the Minister has proposed to us. I feel we would be in agreement with him that automatic increases should not have to wait on the time of this or the other House for a motion to be put down, a motion which must be passed before the changes in the scheme take full effect.

However, before we consent to the Bill in full I feel we must ask ourselves what is the difference between the situation in the past and the situation which the Minister now proposes for the future. In the past changes in these pensions schemes required a positive resolution of the House. Accordingly, these were circulated to all Members together with an explanatory memorandum and on their introduction in the House they were proposed by the Minister for Defence who explained exactly what was involved in these particular changes. Therefore, the Members of the House were quite clear in regard to these matters. Not only was the matter drawn to their attention by being specifically on the Order Paper but they were quite clear as to the implications of the change. In the interests of streamlining the procedures of the House we move from a procedure based on positive confirmation by resolution of the House to a procedure based on possible annulment by a resolution of the House. There is a difference, a difference to which we must pay attention before we can discharge this Bill.

If the Minister's proposal is adopted what will happen is that we will be notified in regard to these particular changes in the scheme; we may get an explanatory memorandum but it will be necessary for any Senator who wants to see the full implications of what happened to check it back against the existing scheme. It might be thought that this would not be a very difficult matter but I am afraid it would. I would, in this instance, like to draw the attention of the House to a report of a committee of this House. It is the First Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which was appointed by this House on the 4th July, 1957. This particular report was a report of July, 1958. I quote from page 19:

In the case of Instruments which have been subject to amendment over a period of years such as the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme, 1937, the Select Committee is of the opinion that there is a need for consolidation and it would be glad to see this work undertaken at a convenient opportunity.

In its report of July, 1958, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is a committee of this House, drew attention to the need for consolidation of the very scheme which is the subject matter of the Bill which the Minister is bringing into us here today. I feel that the Minister should inform the House of how much progress has been made in the past ten years in regard to the consolidation of these schemes and the amendments to them. It may well be that the Department of Defence under the Minister has acted with all convenient speed. It may well be that this scheme — which he now proposes should be the subject only of annulment and not of confirmation —is in a thoroughly consolidated form that, would delight the hearts of the Statutory Instruments Committee but if so it has certainly not come to my attention. If I am wrong in regard to this I would only be too glad to be corrected. If I am right in thinking that this consolidation has not taken place, then this Bill should not be passed. I do not think that this House should surrender its power in regard to a change from a scheme of positive confirmation to one of possible annulment unless it does so in regard to a consolidated scheme which a legislator can understand so that he does not have to go through a long paper chase, a sort of treasure hunt from amendment to amendment, until he finds out what is the exact purport of what is in the latest proposed amendment.

For that reason, while I say we agree with this streamlining of the procedure, I feel that this Bill — to which there is no great objection in principle— should not come into force unless the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme to which it refers has already been consolidated and, if it has not been consolidated, should not come into force until it has.

Mr. Murphy

Senator Dooge raised an important point but I think any of us who have been in this House for a number of years know that in practice we get these Bills on Budgets et cetera and I have never heard any objection to an increase being given in the pensions. Usually the increase is announced in the Budget speech. We might debate it or make a mention of it in the passing of the Finance Bill and then months later we get a Bill which puts in law what we have already possibly mentioned in a Finance Bill and, in fact, has been paid to the pensioners. It is unrealistic to mention at that stage that we do not agree to the increases which were proposed in the Budget and which are being paid to the pensioners. It is a more realistic operation to put it on this basis. I hope that the change in the method we have been dealing with those matters is an indication that in future military pensions and other similar pensions will be adjusted annually in order to maintain their purchasing power.

This Bill does not deal with this but I hope this is an indication of intent. I remember Dr. Ryan, who is now a Member of this House, when speaking on this issue previously as Minister for Finance, indicated that he hoped this sort of adjustment in pensions to maintain their purchasing value would be a continuing process. Those may not be his exact words but I think they probably express the spirit of the type of undertaking he was giving. I welcome the Bill as a sensible arrangement and, as I said, I hope it is an indication that he will have those sort of adjustments made annually in order to maintain the purchasing value of the pension of retired public service personnel.

Mr. Sheldon

I am rather in agreement with both Senators although there is somewhat of a disagreement between them. I think Senator Murphy is probably wrong in his emphasis. It is precisely in regard to something everyone looks on as very good and not to be over-critical about detail that the House ought to be wary of the disappearance of detail. If the Minister were to propose reducing pensions then everybody would be on their guard and would watch every possible way of stopping what he was trying to do but when he is doing something special everyone is inclined to say that he is doing something good and we will pass it quickly.

I am not in agreement that what is in the Bill is an improvement from the point of view of streamlining the manner in which this should be done. I am very glad that Senator Dooge drew attention to the matter of the statutory instruments. I presume it would be unwise if I attempted to embark on a discussion of Defence Force Regulations of all sorts but my recollection is that this deals with Army Pensions and one is somewhat in the wilderness to find one's way about it.

I would be happy if, as Senator Dooge suggested, the Minister would at least bring this part of the Defence Force Regulations into some sort of recognisable state. Are was to perpetuate the practice of referring, for instance, to paragraph (3) of subsection (2) being amended by the deletion of the word "six" and the insertion of the word "eight"? Because you then have to go back to see behind what was "four" and originally "two". One has to go back years before one finds out what was meant at the beginning.

I am glad Senator Dooge referred to it. This is something which has been a source of worry to the Statutory Instruments Committee. I understood that efforts were being made in the Department to have something done about this. We appreciate it is not easy. So many regulations are amended that it is hard to decide at what point in time to start but in a case like this if any streamlining machinery were brought into use it would be a very good thing to consolidate the Army pension regulations so that in future, as Senator Dooge says, if members of the Seanad are aware that such and such a percentage was to be added to existing sums at least they would know what the existing sums were and what it all means.

Mr. Hilliard

Following recommendations both in the Dáil and in this House this Bill has been introduced, as Senator Murphy says, as a sensible arrangement whereby two specific types of increases can be implemented without the need for coming to both Houses of the Oireachtas with an amending pensions schemes under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act. They are automatic increases. They are specified in section 3 of the Bill and the Bill does not purport to deal with anything more than that. Any new pensions scheme would be subject to the law as it stands and the Minister for Defence would have to introduce such a scheme in both Houses of the Oireachtas for approval by both Houses before it would become law.

We are, in this instance, seeking to get statutory authority to pay pensions that are already increased by Budgetary action or arising from increased remuneration. Some of the increases have already been paid but others have not — in cases where the £1 a week increase in pay applied and the personnel concerned have finished their time in the army. In so far as the question raised by Senator Dooge is concerned regarding the consolidation of the pensions schemes, the position is that a certain amount of the work has been done in this direction but it has not been possible to finalise the work. The Seanad can rest assured that the recommendation of the Statutory Instruments Committee is not being lost sight of, but at this stage I could not give any indication as to when the matter will be finalised. I do not think any other points have been raised which call for comment by me. It is a simple Bill, self-explanatory and I do not think that any other points arise.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1968