Vol. 69 No. 3
I move:
That the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme, 1970, 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 11th day of December, 1970, be confirmed.
This is a scheme made pursuant to the Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts, 1932 to 1968. These Acts provide that before a scheme such as this comes into operation it must be confirmed by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas. Its purpose is to improve the retirement benefits payable under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 to 1970, and to amend these schemes in other respects.
Article 5 provides that the special responsibility allowances payable to certain senior officers who hold posts of responsibility and which have not hitherto been reflected in the retired pay of these officers will now be taken into account. A 20 per cent increase in the normal rate of retired pay is being provided in the case of an officer who retires while holding the appointment of Chief of Staff, Adjutant-General, Quartermaster-General or Assistant Chief of Staff and a 10 per cent increase in the case of an officer who retires while holding the appointment of Officer Commanding a Command. These increases are modelled on a provision in the existing schemes whereby officers of the Army Medical Corps receive a 20 per cent increase in the normal rate of retired pay while other professional officers received a 10 per cent increase.
The purpose of Article 6 is to bring the schemes into line with other superannuation codes which provide, in addition to pension on retirement, a maximum lump sum of one and a half years pay. At present the maximum gratuity payable to a married officer represents about 80 per cent of a year's pay. It can be earned for much shorter service and at a much earlier age than apply to other public servants. The new provision will provide a maximum gratuity of one and a half years pay in the case of an officer retiring on reaching the prescribed age limit or within two years of it. There will also be a considerable improvement in the gratuity payable to those who retire within five years of reaching the age limit.
Under Article 17 of the principal scheme the retired pay of reserve officers who are called out on full time service is suspended for the duration of that service. Article 7 revokes this provision and will enable the reserve officers who were called out in August, 1969 and whose retired pay was suspended to receive the retired pay for the period of suspension.
Article 8 provides that the non-contributory pensions payable under the schemes to the widows and children of officers will not be payable where pensions are payable to widows and children under a contributory scheme which is being introduced for the widows and children of deceased officers.
Article 9 increases the pension increment of 1s a week payable to a soldier for each year of service over 21 years up to 31 years. This increment was introduced in 1947 and the increase which varies with the date of discharge, represents the average percentage increase in the pay of the various non-commissioned ranks since that time. The increase will be payable until the soldier reaches the age of 70 years and becomes eligible for a contributory old age pension or until he becomes otherwise eligible for a retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts.
A gratuity for a married long-service soldier discharged on pension is provided for under Article 10. The gratuity will be one week's pay for each year of service subject to a maximum of 31 weeks pay. The pay and allowances of soldiers have recently been consolidated with effect from the 1st June, 1969. At present a condition for the grant of an additional married pension to a soldier is that marriage allowance be payable to him at the date of discharge. Article 11 makes some consequential changes resulting from consolidation. A married pension will now be payable to a soldier who was in receipt of a married rate of pay at discharge. It will also be payable to a widower soldier discharged on pension and will be continued in the case of a soldier pensioner whose wife predeceases him after discharge.
Under the existing schemes only continuous service in the Army Nursing Service is reckonable for pension purposes. Article 12 removes this requirement in the case of a member of the service who resigns on marriage and is reappointed after being widowed. The service before marriage will now be reckonable and any marriage gratuity paid will be deducted from her pay or from her retirement benefits. Provision is also made for the aggregation of separate periods of service in the special case of a member who resigned for domestic reasons and was later reappointed.
On the face of it there seems to be no reason why any Member of this House should object to the motion that is being proposed. Regulations in regard to superannuation are in many respects confusing. Regulations in regard to Army service also tend to be confusing. Therefore when we get regulations in regard to Army pensions they very often are doubly confusing. It is, I think, really difficult for the Members of the House, on the basis of the regulations themselves, the explanatory memorandum and the Minister's speech, to appreciate and to evaluate precisely what is being done in this regard. We have no reason to raise objection to it but in the future steps might be taken which would enable us to examine these matters a little more closely.
In the course of a debate here yesterday, one of our Members indicated that no one was happy about the prospect of armed men in this country not in the uniform of the State but I think if we fail so close to Christmas to have this particular motion here, Members of the House might be worried about armed men wearing the uniform of the State. I would suggest that while we agree with what is in these regulations, it is hard for us to discharge our duty fully in regard to them.
We have before us, and the Minister has referred in his speech to the fact that we are dealing with a main scheme prepared in 1937, and an amending scheme some ten years later. There are, so far as I know, numerous minor amending schemes. The Minister has not told us how many there are; maybe he got tired counting how many amendments have been made to the Army pension regulations.
Here I must come to something that has been put in this House to various Ministers in regard to many schemes of this kind namely, a plea for consolidation. I know the Minister and his colleagues have heard this before but I would suggest that in regard to this particular code of Army pensions this is something that should be done. It may well be that the Minister's own officials are perfectly happy, that they have well-marked copies of the code, but I imagine that many pots of paste have been used in the making of a fully marked up copy of these Army regulations. Probably a few pairs of scissors have been blunted in snipping out the pieces and putting them together. I would ask the Minister to consider very seriously producing consolidated regulations of this type. I do not know how difficult the task might be, but I would suggest that it would be well worthwhile.
I am not aware of any place in which we can find most of these regulations in print. If there is such a printing I suggest that a reference to this effect should have been made in the explanatory memorandum. I must confess to the fact that I have not undertaken the job of digging back. I would ask the Minister to consider this, not just to convenience Members of the House but to convenience those who are concerned under the regulations. There is a tendency for employees to know very well the particular regulations that apply to themselves and in all walks of life people tend to know their superannuation code fairly well. Nevertheless, there is a very firm case here for consolidation.
There are a few other points that I should like to make in regard to the regulations. It is difficult to discuss this and each of us in a single speech, to us by way of a motion. We all agreed that this was the proper way, and that it was not necessary that we should have legislation every time we wished to change the regulations, but this new system has its disadvantages. It means that we have in this one single debate, and each us of in a single speech, to show what is involved in the amendments to the scheme. There is no opportunity for a Committee Stage discussion which we could have had if these regulations had come forward to us on the basis of a Bill. We are in the difficulty that we cannot, as we might on a Committee Stage, ask the Minister to give further explanations in regard to individual items and then perhaps to bring forward further supplementary points. We find ourselves, as I have said, in a real difficulty in probing what is here. It is necessary, therefore, when we have got questions to ask that we do so in the one speech which we are allowed to make.
Following through the explanatory memorandum which explains the various articles, we come to Article 5 which provides for retirement pay of officers who hold certain senior appointments in the Army. In this regard, I should like to ask the Minister if this is a reflection in the pension of certain allowances which are part of their pay while they are holding the office. I am anxious to know if, in fact, this is what is involved. If so, I think this is probably fair. If people hold a position of responsibility and in order to avoid complicating the grading structure of any employment, be it the Army or anything else, occasionally they are made certain allowances but if they carry these allowances for a long number of years then these should be allowed for pension purposes. Too often an injustice is done to a person if it is decided to grant an allowance rather than have a further grade or make a further promotion. This is often forgotten when the person comes to retirement and this may be unfair. It may well be that I am completely misconceiving what is involved in this particular Article but it does seem to me, if I am right in my interpretatiton, that this is a reasonable case.
In regard to the next few Articles there are no questions that immediately occur to me until we come to Article 8. I would like the Minister in his reply in regard to this, to explain to the House what is the position, or what will be the position, when these regulations come into force in regard to the widows' and orphans' scheme. It is noted here in the explanatory memorandum that a contributory scheme is to come into force, and when it comes into force that the widow and children of an officer will not be eligible for the existing pensions. I should like to ask the Minister what change is involved here. If there is to be a contributory scheme, does this mean that persons who previously were entitled to certain gratuities on a non-contributory basis now have to contribute to them? Again, I think we are at a disadvantage here because this is a point one would like to discuss in detail on a Committee Stage. All I can do now is ask a question and again revert to the fact that if we had a consolidated version of the regulations and perhaps further details in regard to explanation, it would make the debate when it came to the House all that much easier.
Articles 9 and 10 appear to apply to long service and I do not think any of us will query this. I think we should do everything we can to increase the incentive towards long service in the Army. In regard to Article 11 there appears to be a shift in the basis in regard to marriage allowances and we would be glad if the Minister could indulge the House in his reply by perhaps speaking in greater detail of the changes which are being made here. It is not easy for the Members of the House to appreciate it on the face of the regulations themselves or on the single paragraph in the speech which the Minister made at the commencement of this debate.
In regard to the Army nursing service, we should welcome here the provision that, in the case of a person who re-enters the service after being widowed, this would rank as continuous service and this prompts me to ask a further question. In these days of international humanitarian activity, I take it there may be instances where members of the Army nursing service may be seconded to work in special international organisations. I would like to ask the Minister if this has occurred and if, in fact, the policy in his Department is that members of the Army nursing service who wish to be seconded to serve in special agencies under the United Nations—outside our own United Nations commitments—are allowed to do so. If this is not possible under the Army regulations there would be a strong case here for ensuring that the person would be eligible to return to the Army nursing service without affecting pension rights in regard to the service which has been earned in the Army both before and after the break in service. We see no reason why these changes should not be made.
In general it is difficult to evaluate the exact changes which have been made in some of these instances. A more detailed description of some of them from the Minister at the conclusion of this debate might be helpful to us and consolidation of the regulations would be helpful to many people besides ourselves.
I should like to support the Motion before the House but like Senator Dooge I am at a disadvantage that this is a Motion and not a Bill. If it were a Bill we could examine it in depth on Committee Stage but as it is a Motion we have to rely on the Minister being cooperative in trying to explain some of the points about which we feel a little bit perturbed.
One of the things that strikes me as being an anomaly vis-á-vis local authority workers is that Article 9 increases the pension increment of 1s per week payable to a soldier for each year of service over 21 years up to 31 years. This increment was introduced in 1947 and the increase which varies with the date of discharge, represents the average percentage increase in the pay of the various non-commissioned ranks since that time. The Minister stated that the increase will be payable until the soldier reaches the age of 70 years and becomes eligible for a contributory old age pension or until he becomes otherwise eligible for a retirement pension under the Social Welfare Acts. That means that his Army pension ceases when he becomes 70 years of age and he will then qualify for the contributory old age pension. If that is the case there is a grave anomaly here inasmuch as a council worker who pays superannuation and who retires on pension can draw his pension and contributory old age pension when he reaches the age of 70 years. If that is the case there is not much incentive for a man to adopt the Army as a career. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his reply, would clarify that point.
I should like to join with the other speakers in welcoming this motion. I wish to express regret that we have not had an opportunity of studying the matter in greater depth, due to the manner in which it is being dealt with.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions arising out of the scheme. The House, to a great extent, has to take this at its face value. It appears to represent a considerable improvement on existing schemes, but as we have not got the existing schemes we must assume that what the Minister said in his introductory statement is correct in all detail. I should like to ask the Minister why there is a differentiation between the increases awarded to officers who retire while holding the appointment of Chief of Staff, Adjutant-General, Quartermaster-General or Assistant Chief of Staff, in which case they get an increase of 20 per cent of the normal rate of retired pay and the increases awarded in the case of an officer who retires when holding an appointment of Commanding Officer, which is only 10 per cent. There may be some very good reason for this differentiation and I should like to know what it is. I should also like the Minister to give us some idea how this scheme compares with similar schemes in other State services. I assume that the Army have no opportunity of considering these schemes before they are put into effect, that there is no body such as the Garda Representative Body who can negotiate on behalf of the Gardaí. Perhaps it is a good thing, but I do not know. The only method by which a soldier can agree or disagree on the terms of his appointment is apparently after the terms are made. We rely on the loyalty and the patriotism of our force and there is a serious obligation on us in the Houses of the Oireachtas and on the Minister for Defence to make the terms of appointment for a career in the Army as attractive as possible.
There has been some criticism in recent years that the rate of recruitment in the Army has fallen off and for this reason the Minister should be complimented on improving the terms of the pension scheme. The new Minister has an opportunity to throw aside some of the inhibitions which bound his predecessors. He should look even more closely into the terms under which our Army operates at the present time. The Army should be made attractive to young men. It should comprise a career that would be satisfying to an individual and also of benefit to his country.
One section of the Defence Forces which was not mentioned in this scheme is the FCA, which is the second line of defence. I do not know if the Minister has it in mind to do anything for this force which is largely a voluntary one, but it is an essential part of our Defence Forces. The House would wish that the Minister would be equally generous in dealing with this section of the Defence Forces.
I can recall the days of the LDF from 1940 to 1945 when the treatment meted out to that voluntary force was anything but an encouragement to them. I can remember in 1945 when both the LDF and the LSF were left more or less in a situation of suspense while the then Minister was making up his mind if the force should be disbanded long after Germany had capitulated. If we are to have a defence force, then every facet should receive comparable treatment.
I should like again to congratulate the Minister for showing commendable enterprise and I hope that this is just a small example of other improvements in our Defence Forces which he intends to bring into effect.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Cosanta. Ní dóigh liom go raibh sé sa Tigh linn cheana. Mar a dúirt cuid des na Seanadóirí eile níl sé fuiriste na hActaí seo a leanúint. Dá mbeadh sceideal pinsiúin de shórt éigin leagaithe amach in einfheacht leis an doiciméid seo, bheadh sé níos éascaí ar fad. B'fhéidir nach mbíonn an t-am againn ceisteanna mar seo do scrd½. Tá sé soiléir ar ndóigh go dtabharfadh aon duine againn ar aon taobh den Tighe gurbh i bfhabhar go gcuireann aon duine againn fáilte roimh aon ní a chuireann feabhas ar mar a níochtar muintir an Airm as a seirbhís. Tá sé fuiriste alt 12 a thuigsint. Níl aon deacracht ann agus molaim é. Ní thuigim é go ró-shoiléir mar a dúirt an Seanadóir Mac Gearailt alt a naoi. Fé mar a thuigim é tá na costaisí áireacas á íoc fé láthair ag an Arm nó ag an Aire. Sé sin costaisí an "Superannuation" ach má tá, tá sé tuilte ag gach aon saighdúir. Dá bhrí sin ní thuigim cad na thaobh go mba chóir é a ghearradh sa pinsin a bhaineas leis an méadúchán de scilling sa tseachtain nuair a sroiseann an saighdúir 70 blian d'aois. Dá mbeadh sé ag díol a chostasaí féin, ní dóigh liom go mbeadh an rún so cóir ach bfhéidir go bhfuil sé ceart ins na coinníolacha atá ann fén arm ach bfhéidir go bhféadfadh an tAire a rá cad a chosnóidh sé mar a mbeadh an coinníoll seo ann go ngearrfar an méadú pinsean seo nuair a sroiseann an saighdúir 70 blian d'aois.
Maidir le na h-altannaí eile sa scéim go dtuigim iad cuirim fáilte rompa, ach fé mar a dúras b'fhusa i bhfad dá mbeadh sceideal de shórt éigin go bhféadfaidh duine a thuigsint na rithraithe atá le teacht. Ach taobh amuigh de sin tá áthas orm fáilte a chur roimh an tairiscint seo ón Aire.
Is é an chéad dualgas atá orm ar ndóigh fáilte a chur roimh an Aire.
Cuirim fáilte roimhe agus guím gach rath air mar Aire Cosanta. Tá tosnú maith déanta aige cheana féin agus a chomhartha san féin an rún atá os ár gcomhair inniu. Tá ard-mheas ag gach aoinne air mar Aire. Tá ard mheas air, ach go háirithe, ag oifigigh agus fir an Airm agus is maith an tuar é sin don am atá le teacht.
Having welcomed the Minister to the House and having commended his work and his deep interest in the Army, both officers and men, I may say that the Army has well served the Irish people. The Army has as fine a body of men as are to be found in any country in the world and this applies in the case of officers and men of all ranks.
People are beginning to understand that there is more to a soldier's profession than shooting people. That is as it should be, because the Christian tradition should be that a soldier's first duty is to help the weak and those who are in need of help and to fight evil. These were the principles of the knights in the time of chivalry and these characteristics were to be found in our Army long ago—I refer to the legendary Fianna.
Lest I digress too far, I will come back at once to these regulations which, at least in a small way, help to make the Army a more attractive profession. The Army should be made as attractive as possible. Our Army is of a very high standard and that standard should be maintained. At home and, maybe, in a particular way, abroad, our Army are the best ambassadors we have. In a great part of Europe I have heard our forces praised highly for their conduct and bearing, their Christian outlook and their deep interest in promoting peace between warring factions in Cyprus and elsewhere.
I agree with those Senators who spoke of the difficulty in understanding the various regulations and amendments. The same applies to many other Departments. The ideal solution would be to publish a revised edition of these regulations from time to time, say every couple of years. That would enable people to study these matters and have a better understanding of them.
Again in regard to the soldier's responsibilities, his duties and training, the wider training a soldier can get, not alone in the spheres of war, self-defence et cetera, but in such fields as social activity, language and culture, economics, human relations, modern history, the better. In the world of today we require men of common sense. Many of the world's problems arise from the fact that we have so many specialists. The man of wide interests is the man who will command respect and make the world a better place in which to live.
I commend the Minister for his great enterprise since he has become Minister for Defence and I am sure this is just a small example of what he intends to do and we wish him every good luck in his career.
As Senator Cranitch said, we have many experts in the world today. I do not profess to be an expert in any field, certainly not in the rather complicated field of Army pension schemes. I should like to join with those Members of the House who welcomed the Minister here today. It is the first time he has come to this House as Minister for Defence and I should like to welcome him.
Unfortunately, I do not exactly see my way to endorsing the gratuitous compliments being paid to the Minister for having introduced this scheme since he became Minister. This scheme, I understand, has been a long time in the melting pot, a long time being awaited by members of the Defence Forces, and it is long overdue. They have the normal grievances that so many people have in the public service. In the matter of pensions and, from time to time, pay awards, they feel that the public sector, or parts of it, are one of the last to be treated. But in relation to the Defence Forces there is some difference. Other people in the public sector have representative bodies of one type or another to negotiate and make strong representations on their behalf and to make their views as a collective body publicly known.
The Defence Forces have no such organisation and they must consequently await the Minister's pleasure. When he is replying, perhaps the Minister could enlighten us a little bit on this: they have been awaiting the Minister's pleasure for much longer than the present Minister has been in office.
We have the scheme at last and the Minister might be good enough to tell the House when he envisages that it will actually be put into operation, or whether parts of it have more or less been arranged, or many already be in operation. My particular reason for asking that is that I know one particular pay award given to one section of the Defence Forces, in common with the rest of the country, has not yet been awarded to Army nurses. They have not got the salary and status that nurses throughout the rest of the country got some months ago. I hope that the passing of this motion by this House will ensure that there will be a speedy implementation of the provisions in the scheme.
The Minister referred to Article 5 which provides that certain people holding special responsible positions would receive a percentage increase in their retirement pay, I presume as a mark of recognition for the positions they had held. In this regard I wonder if there might not have been, say, some recognition of certain senior NCOs who hold positions of responsibility also in the Army, over and above the ordinary duties which an NCO might be expected to carry out. Would there also be a special responsibility percentage increase awarded to them?
With reference to Article 9 in relation to increasing the increment of 1s a week, payable to a soldier for each year of service over 21 years up to 31 years, it is of interest but, as all the speakers have pointed out, these are very complicated regulations. The Minister tells us that the 1s a week increment is being changed. Could he say to what it is being changed? Could he give us an idea what a soldier retiring now would receive by way of pension; and what a soldier retiring next week—by which time I hope the Minister will have the scheme in operation—with the same length of service, would then receive?
Finally, would the Minister be good enough to enlighten us as to how our military pensions generally compare with military pensions which are awarded and in operation in other countries?
Senator Cranitch very rightly commended the high reputation which our Army has gained for itself and for the country abroad but I am afraid it did not gain it on the strength of the money it had in its pocket. We have all read stories of how badly paid Irishmen were in comparison with men from other countries with whom they were serving abroad. It might be interesting to have a comparison of our pension scheme with those of other countries in this field. The scheme is to be welcomed but it is one that has been long awaited. The Members of the House have a duty to point out that the Defence Forces are the only part of the public sector who do not have some representative body to negotiate for them and to publicise their case. Therefore there is an onus on every Member of the House of the Oireachtas to see to it that the scheme is examined as carefully as possible and to urge the Minister, who has good intentions in this regard, to ensure that on any future occasion increases of this type are not left outstanding for such a long time.
I shall not detain the House very long. I just want to add my voice to the sentiments expressed by the previous Senators. I welcome any improvements which can be made by the Minister and the Department in the working conditions of our Defence Forces. We all realise the importance of having a Defence Force and therefore the necessity for having a contented force determined to serve the nation and the people. From time to time members of the force have their problems, which they always seem to have difficulty in airing. I have no doubt that, as time goes on, they will find machinery which will be acceptable to them and to the Government for the purpose of airing their grievances. I welcome the new provisions in this Bill and I join with the previous speakers in endorsing this Motion.
I should like to avail of this opportunity of, first of all, welcoming the order that the payment be made forthwith. I certainly feel that there has been undue delay in this case. I should also like to avail of this opportunity of asking the Minister for Defence if he would consider the reintroduction of the cavalry for ceremonial occasions. I know it is slightly irrelevant but——
It is only the pensioning of troopers and horses which would be in order on this motion.
Nevertheless I avail of the opportunity. We may not have the Minister for Defence in the House again and I recall mentioning——
I am endeavouring to tell the Senator that he has not got the opportunity now.
Perhaps he will bear it in mind.
First, I should like to express my appreciation of the very kind reception I received from the House on my first visit here today. As well, I must convey my thanks to the contributors for the useful points they raised. I shall endeavour to give as much information as possible. Some criticism has been made about the manner in which this scheme has been brought before the House, and I note that comment. Senator Dooge referred to the necessity for consolidation of pension schemes. I can assure him that we are working on consolidation and we agree that it must come.
Senator Dooge also referred to the increase in the retired pay of certain senior officers, that is, the Chief of Staff, Quartermaster-General and so on. These increases are given as a recognition of their higher degree of responsibility. We think it is a justifiable increase and one that ought to be given.
A contributory pension scheme for widows and orphans has been introduced for the civil service and is now being introduced for Army officers. It means that widows and children of officers will get higher pensions under the new scheme than under the noncontributory scheme which was in operation before now. This was also mentioned by Professor Dooge.
The question of the Army nursing service was also raised by Senator Dooge and in this connection all I can say is that we have no experience of nurses being seconded to other services and the point has not arisen. It will be considered if it does arise.
Senator FitzGerald raised the question of the reduction of a soldier's pension on payment of the old age pension at age 70 years. All serving Army men are covered under the Social Welfare Acts and qualify for contributory old age pensions. These pensions are paid for by the State as well as by the men themselves and, on attainment of the age of 70, when the contributory old age pension comes into effect, any increments of pension payable under the new scheme will cease to be payable. This is in line with general principle.
It was suggested that some NCOs should qualify for a higher rate of gratuity in view of the higher gratuity being given to senior officers. The fact is that NCOs get a higher pension and gratuity than the lower ranks and in this way their extra responsibility is fully recognised.
The question of changes in the payment for married personnel has been raised. Under the existing scheme, a condition for the grant of an additional married pension to a soldier is that marriage allowance be payable to him at the date of discharge. With effect from 1st June, 1969, marriage allowance has been incorporated in a married rate of pay. As from that date a married pension will be payable to a soldier who is in receipt of a married rate of pay at date of discharge. It will also be payable to a widower soldier discharged on pension and will be continued in the case of a soldier pensioner whose wife dies.
Senator Boland inquired as to when the payments are likely to be made. I can assure him that gratuity cheques will be issued this side of Christmas. The question of military participation in pay and pension negotiations was also raised. I should like to clear up this point by saying that military representatives were at the negotiations on pensions. On the question of the FCA I would point out that the scheme refers to the Permanent Defence Force only and therefore the FCA were not taken into account.
I hope I have touched on the points raised by the various speakers. It is evident that the scheme is being well received. I feel a deep responsibility towards our armed forces and it would be my intention to endeavour to secure better pay and better pensions for them. I should like to take this opportunity of commenting on the performance and conduct of our military personnel both here and in foreign parts. Our men are setting a headline for the world in the performance of their peace-keeping duties in Cyprus. I am very proud of our Army and I can assure the House that I shall endeavour to continue the improvement of their conditions at all levels.
May I remind the Minister that he was asked if he could enlighten the House as to what is the present scale of pensions payable to a soldier, as referred to in Article 9, and what difference the increase will make? I know it does not arise directly out of the scheme. There was also reference to the long-outstanding pay awards to Army nurses. Perhaps the Minister would let us have this information.
Under Article 9 a soldier discharged on or after 1st January, 1971, with 31 years service will become eligible for a total increment of pension of £3 5s a week instead of the present 10s. It will be calculated by multiplying 5s 6d by ten plus the present 10s—£3 5s as against 10s.
Of an increase?
That would be the new rate of pension increment for a soldier who has served 31 years.
I am sorry to labour the point, but may I ask the Minister how much he gets by way of pension now and how much will he get when the new scheme comes into operation?
Let me give a few examples. A married private leaving the Army after 21 years' service, when he might still be only 40 years of age, will be eligible for a pension of £7 18s 3d a week and a gratuity of £467 5s. A married private with 31 years service will be eligible for a pension of £11 3s 3d a week and a gratuity of £689 15s. A married sergeant with 21 years service will be eligible for a pension of £9 1s a week and a gratuity of £554 8s. A married sergeant with 31 years service will be eligible for a pension of £12 6s a week and a gratuity of £818 8s.
That is at present?
I appreciate the Minister said in his reply that this scheme refers only to the Permanent Defence Force. Does he contemplate introducing any scheme in regard to the giving of gratuities to members of the FCA who have served an agreed number of years? I appreciate that they possibly could not qualify for pension for obvious reasons, but surely a gratuity would be only fair recognition of their services after a period?
The question of gratuities for the FCA was not considered. This scheme has to do with the Permanent Defence Force only. I shall certainly be most sympathetic towards any proposals to better the annual grant for FCA personnel. It was not considered in connection with this measure.
Fair enough. Could I just ask one more question? I did raise the question of the percentage increase in the case of certain senior officers as compared to the low rate of increase for the more junior officers. I appreciate the Minister's reply. I think he was. referring to my point in saying that senior officers, having regard to their greater responsibility, would be entitled to a higher rate of pension. The point I was trying to make was this: I presume there are existing differentials in the pension scheme but to give a 20 per cent increase to the officer getting the higher rate of pension while giving only 10 per cent to those in receipt of the lower rate of pension will result in further increasing the differential between the senior and the junior officers. Is that the Minister's intention? In other words if there already exists a difference of say £3 a week between, for example, the Chief of Staff and an Officer Commanding a Command, if the senior man gets a 20 per cent increase and the less senior man 10 per cent, the differential is increased even further. Does the Minister follow what I am trying to say?
I do, yes. Up to now certain senior officers including the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General have got the same pension as the ordinary line colonel even though they have a responsibility allowance which a line colonel does not have. Until now they got the same rate of pension but in future it is proposed to increase the normal rate of retired pay so as to reflect the rates of responsibility allowance.
That answers my question.
Could the Minister give us some information as to how these pensions compare with those payable to military forces in other countries with whom some of our personnel might be serving abroad?
I am afraid I have not got that information.
