A number of amendments have been put down and the Cathaoirleach has ruled amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 out of order as they involve a charge on the public revenue.
SECTION 1
Army Pensions Bill, 1971: Committee and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), line 13, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
The Minister in his very welcome comprehensive reply to the Second Stage debate dealt with this point and that is the hardy annual of whether legislation should use the words "may" or "shall". What is really at issue here is whether the Minister for Defence may grant or whether, once this Bill has been passed, he shall grant a pension if the people are eligible. The unfortunate thing about it is that while we have here a Minister who is obviously well-disposed towards helping military service widows, nevertheless, by the use of the word "may" he is granted the discretionary power of deciding whether to give a pension to a person who is in all ways under the Bill eligible to receive such a pension. The court of final appeal will be the Minister for Defence. There is a definite feeling not just in relation to this Bill but in relation to legislation generally that when a Bill goes through which is welcomed by all sides it should be obligatory, when it becomes an Act, on the Minister involved to ensure that it and its provisions are enforced. The use of the word "may" allows the Minister the discretionary power of refusing to give in this case a pension, but in other cases various other concessions or grants.
The Minister is a little unfortunate that at the end of a rather long session of the House he has been presented with this Bill which has become a regular form of amendment to legislation which has come before the House recently. The amendment is being put down not because we feel there is anything terribly defective about the Army Pensions Bill or the way in which the present Minister may implement it but because we feel that the principle of allowing discretion to a Minister by the use of the word "may" rather than obliging him by using the word "shall" in relation to Bills such as this is a bad thing.
I should like to add a few words to what Senator Boland has said. The Minister, in his approach to this Bill, has shown a very human and understanding attitude which we all share. We are torn by a very real desire to assist him in getting this Bill quickly through the Seanad and, therefore, into law, and also to make the best possible provisions we can for the people the Minister seeks to assist in the Bill. It is the horns of a dilemma but I should like to suggest that the amendment has a real point in this regard.
We may not always have a Minister as sympathetic as the present Minister is. This is a permissive section as it stands. The Minister would agree that he would rather see in the Bill a mandatory obligation to grant pensions to widows whose ranks are depleting and will continue to deplete even more rapidly in the years ahead. I should like to urge the amendment on the Minister. If it cannot be done quickly, perhaps the Minister might consider introducing a Bill immediately after the recess to adjust this because there should be in any legislation enacted benefit for the widows of the men who made the supreme sacrifice, who suffered so much and whose sufferings were shared by their widows in past years. It should be mandatory on the State, and it is an obligation we would all share as public representatives, to assist these widows to the best of our ability. Indeed, the assistance proposed in this Bill, as the Minister has admitted, is very modest assistance. A minimum pension of £1 a week in this day and age is a very small sum. The least they could expect is that they could get it as an obligation on the State. As the Bill reads at the moment it is a permissive payment, not an obligation.
As I indicated at the outset, I would not be prepared to accept the amendment at this juncture. I have indicated the circumstances and the position in regard to the question of widows and I could not yield on that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 2 is out of order.
Am I in order in inquiring why amendment No. 2 is out of order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Because it means a potential charge on the public revenue.
A potential charge?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
A potential charge is sufficient for it to be out of order.
If a widow is getting a minimum pension of £52 a year and she marries, under this Bill she would lose the pension. Under the amendment she would continue to enjoy the pension. It is not an additional charge on public funds.
It is a potential charge on a potential widow of 80 years if she potentially remarries. That is the potentiality of it.
"Potential" surely does not seem appropriate to an 80 year old. A man of 80 might marry a girl of 20 who then would be entitled to this pension for the rest of her life. It must be realised that the idea of this pension is because she was the wife of someone who was involved in the struggle for freedom.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In subsection (4), line 33, before "require" to insert "reasonably".
Amendment No. 5 is to ensure that the sort of questions which would be asked on a form which would be sent out to any applicant in relation to a pension under this Bill would be questions of a reasonable nature and that they would not, as are so many application forms which are designed by bureaucrats at present, seek information which would be quite irrelevant. The effect of the amendment has already been dealt with by contributions on Second Stage and in his reply the Minister has outlined what will be asked and which the House ought to accept as being reasonable questions. If we can accept that this form as outlined by the Minister would be the type of application form in relation to the scheme, we might reasonably withdraw the amendment on the assumption that this is to be the form ad infinitum.
If the Senator wishes to examine the application form, he is very welcome to do so. I will read out the information required and that should satisfy him in full. It is an application form for allowance for widows of military service pensioners and seeks this information: the name of the deceased military pensioner, address, reference number of the service pension, name and maiden name of applicant, full postal address, date of marriage to deceased, the marriage certificate should be attached. The applicant further states:
I the widow of the above named military service pensioner hereby apply for an allowance. I declare that I have not remarried since his death.
Signature of applicant and that of a witness are asked for. That is the minimum information required.
Most other forms produced by the Civil Service should be designed on the same basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Briefly, because of all these rulings about the amendments, we ought to mention one or two things. The Minister's reply on Second Stage was obviously sympathetic to the points made. It does not alter the fact that he did not feel himself to be in a position to agree to many of the points put forward. It is well for us to reiterate that it seems to be an unfortunate, rather restrictive and really unnecessary condition to remove from a widow the pension under this Bill in the event of her remarrying. There does not seem to be any real justification for it, especially when one accepts that it will not involve a sum of any substance financially.
There is also the position put forward by Senator A. O'Brien and Senator Mannion in relation to an unmarried lady who had spent her life caring for a brother who is now deceased and who had been in receipt of a pension. She would not be entitled to the equivalent pension under this Bill which a widow would be entitled to, although she had spent a large part of her life in taking care of this IRA or Connaught Rangers pensioner. Of course, the main objection to section 1, as it stands, is the one which the Minister dealt with and that is in relation to those who, we all accept, would have been entitled to pensions had they applied, but for reasons of pride or because they were at the time financially quite well off, did not apply for a pension which everybody knows they would have been entitled to. Subsequent to a man's death, the widow finds herself in straitened circumstances and realises that a pension under this Bill would be of real value and help to her. Unfortunately, she would not be entitled to a pension under this Bill because her husband had never made the formal application and had never been formally granted a pension under the Military Service Acts of 1924 and 1936 or the Connaught Rangers Act of 1936.
It seems rather a pity that people like this cannot be dealt with. The Minister pointed out that adequate opportunity had been afforded to all for applying and this is a very fair statement. Nonetheless, there is the group of people who, while they were given that adequate opportunity, for reasons of principle did not apply, although we all know that they would have been eligible for a pension had they so done. The Minister has said that it would not now be possible to give a pension to their widows, because it would not be possible to reconstitute a committee to investigate the claim of the deceased husband. The suggestion made in the course of Second Reading—and if I could suggest, that the suggestion that would have been made in an amendment if it had not been ruled out of order—would be that it is quite accepted that there would not be any justification in reappointing a committee and that such a committee would find themselves in a position in which it would be almost impossible to function. The type of amendment which we wished to put forward would have left—in fact, we might even have used the rather abhorrent word "may" and, indeed, we did say: "The Minister may at his discretion grant an equivalent pension to a widow under section 1"—a pension equivalent to what she would have been entitled to had her husband been in receipt of a pension under the Military Service Acts and had died. In other words, we were quite happy to leave with the Minister the power to deal with this rather exceptional but, nonetheless, genuine case. I think it is rather a pity that the Minister does not accept the suggestion which would have left with him, and him alone, the power to grant pensions to people like this, where he was satisfied that they were in financial need of them and that their husbands, if they had applied, would have been granted the original pension.
With those reservations, I think the section generally would be welcomed by everybody.
Could I just say a word or two on more or less the same lines as Senator Boland? The point was raised that a widow might die and the husband might remarry. Surely it would not be beyond the powers of the draftsmen to make provision only for the widow whom we want to assist in this Bill, that is, the widow who was the first wife of the man who gave service during the 1920s and earlier years. We are talking about ladies in their seventies and the Minister, quite rightly, said in his reply on Second Reading that this Bill is intended as a tribute to the women who shared the sufferings of the men who gave service to this country more than 50 years ago.
We have decided in this Bill that the tribute to that service is going to be automatically terminated if in the unlikely event that one or other of these widows remarries. I think that is a defect in this Bill and I would rather take the risk that was mentioned of the recipient of the pension surviving his wife and remarrying, than of the widow remarrying after her husband had died. I think this is a Bill in which the Minister could afford to be generous, having regard to the conditions of the women whom he is trying to assist, and having regard to the fact that they are really a dying race of people. We are talking about old ladies in their seventies. I think the Minister will agree that the chance of their remarrying, to say the least of it, is very remote.
I am sorry that the Minister found it necessary to introduce this section. I appreciate that we can do nothing about it. In our anxiety to get the Bill through the Seanad and get it into law and into effect we are not going to oppose the section. Perhaps the Minister would look into this point and have an amending Bill drafted after the recess as a gesture to these ladies whom he wants to assist. By this section he is saying to them: "We regard your sufferings and the sufferings you shared with your late husband as worthy of a modest pension of £1 per week, but if you remarry our regard for your sufferings is terminated and you do not get £1 per week." That is what it amounts to.
I know that the Minister has certain difficulties in that regard, but I cannot see that the difficulties are such that they could not be overcome by a very small piece of redrafting. I hope the Minister will, as the next step towards assisting the women he wants to help, bring in an amending Bill to bring this measure a stage further.
If this is a provision for the widow of the deceased, the provision is because she is the widow of the deceased. If she remarries she is no longer the widow of the deceased; she is the wife of another person who will be able to maintain her. This is not a gratuity; this is maintenance. This is meant to help the widow of the deceased person, the widow of the man who fought for his country. It is meant to maintain her, and not as a gift because of her husband's service. This is the important thing about it. The fact that she remarries does not mean that she can carry the maintenance that was provided for her from her late husband to her second husband, regardless of whether her second husband is able to provide for her.
I am just a little disappointed that we were not given the benefit of the Minister's mind in relation to the various points raised. There is one further point which I omitted to mention when I spoke first, and that is in relation to the rather upsetting fact that whether it is a gratuity that is being given or a maintenance payment, as Senator Gallanagh suggests—and I should like to hope that it was not completely the latter—these pensions will be rendered liable for income tax assessment. I think this is very regrettable. The Minister had the example given him on Second Stage where a widow of a military service pensioner could very well find herself in a position where she had to find some work in order to keep body and soul together and where she was earning £6 or £7 per week. Now when she applies for and is granted one of these pensions she will discover that by receiving the pension she is at the level of earning about £6 or £7 per week and she will take herself within the income tax net. The effective gain of the pension payment will be to a fair extent wiped out because it will be returned again to the Exchequer by way of her coming within the income tax net. I think this is a pity. With all respect, I think it is a pity that the Minister has not given us his views on the points raised by the few Senators who spoke.
I have nothing to add to what I said in my statement. All these points have been taken fully into account. The Bill is as comprehensive as we can make it and we cannot see any justification for amendments.
I wondered how the Minister felt about the suggestion from Senator Russell that the Minister might, in the future, introduce a short amending Bill to include the several categories who were mentioned in the course of the Second Stage debate and the present debate and which we all accept are genuine cases. Perhaps, the Minister would try to provide for them in legislation some time in the future.
I will take the Senator's views into account.
Could I ask one question? Section 1 (b) of the Bill reads:
one half of the annual rate of pension payable under any of the said Acts to her husband on 1st day of October, 1971, or which would be payable to him if he were alive on that date.
If it was not for the fact that a final application date has been imposed anybody who, for one reason or another, had not applied up to now would be entitled to apply. Is that not correct?
This relates to the application for the widow's allowance.
Only?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.