Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1973

Vol. 76 No. 3

Private Business. - Army Pensions Bill, 1973 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Second Stage.

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

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the review, within reasonable limitations, of final disablement pensions and other types of cases under the Army Pensions Acts, the reconsideration of which is at present statute-barred.

The Army Pensions Acts provide for the grant of benefits in respect of disablement incurred in service by former members of the Old IRA and former members of the Defence Forces. These benefits consist mainly of pensions in respect of a wound or disease attributable to service, the pensionable minimum for a wound being 20 per cent and for a disease 80 per cent. Where the degree of disablement due to disease is less than 80 per cent but not less than 50 per cent final flat rate pensions at a reduced rate are payable. Provision is also made in the Acts for the grant of pensions in cases where the disablement is not attributable to but was aggravated by service.

Section 2 of the Bill provides that, where the period of ten years laid down by the Act of 1932 for the review of a final pension has expired, that pension may be given a first review at any time at the request of the pensioner on production of medical evidence to show that the degree of disablement has increased by 10 per cent or more. Thereafter the pension may be reviewed, again only at the request of the pensioner, at intervals of not less than two years except in special circumstances where earlier review may be authorised. The usual provision is also made for the re-assessment of the degree of disablement by the Army Pensions Board and for the increase, reduction or suspension of the pension in accordance with the degree of disablement found on reassessment. The section makes provision for the grant of a final flat rate pension in cases where the degree of disablement due to disease is found on reassessment to be less than 80 per cent but not less than 50 per cent. There is no provision in the Acts for the review of the final flat rate pensions to which I have just referred. Section 3 of the Bill will enable them to be reviewed subject to much the same conditions as apply to the cases covered by section 2. If the degree of disablement is found on reassessment to have reached 80 per cent or more, a disability (disease) pension may be awarded in lieu of the final flat rate pension. Section 3 also provides for the suspension of the final flat rate pension if the degree of disablement is found on reassessment to be less than the 50 per cent minimum and for its restoration if on subsequent re-assessment the degree reaches the pensionable minimum.

Section 4 provides for the review of final aggravation pensions on somewhat similar lines to the cases covered by Section 2. There is no provision at present for the review of these pensions.

In the Acts prescribed periods are laid down within which application may be made for the review of a gratuity awarded to persons whose degree of disablement due to a wound did not reach the pensionable minimum of 20 per cent. Where the period for review has expired it is proposed that the person should be given a final opportunity of having his case reviewed. Sections 5, 6 and 7 provide for the grant of pensions in these cases if the degree of disablement is found on reassessment to have reached the 20 per cent pensionable minimum. Section 8 provides for the review, on lines similar to sections 2 and 3, of applications which were refused because the degree of disablement due to disease fell short of the pensionable minimum of 50 per cent. Pensions may be awarded if, on reassessment, the degree of disablement is found to have reached the pensionable minimum. Section 9 makes a similar provision in relation to cases where the degree of disablement due to disability aggravated by service fell short of the pensionable minimum. Sections 10 and 12 are merely consequential amendments to certain provisions of the Acts necessitated by changes in Defence Force Regulations. Prior to the 1st June, 1969, a married soldier was granted "marriage allowance". Since that date marriage allowance has been replaced by a "married rate of pay".

Prior to 1953 pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, were not payable until an officer or soldier had left the Army. Where the officer or soldier died in service their widows were not eligible for an allowance under the Army Pensions Act, 1971. In these cases the widows' allowances have already been paid in anticipation of the Bill and section 11 provides the statutory authority.

The Bill is an enabling one which will confer benefits in many cases and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Brosnan

Firstly, I should like to express my disappointment at the Minister's failure to do what he did when he introduced this Bill on Second Stage in the Dáil. Then he graciously complimented his predecessor in office for the part he had played in the preparation of this Bill. However, the Minister can remedy that when he is replying. Notwithstanding that we, on this side of the House, welcome the Bill wholeheartedly.

It is a Bill which is long overdue. By relaxing and rationalising the provisions governing the granting and reviewing of Army pensions it has removed a number of the technicalities and the anomalies that existed in previous Army Pensions Bills. It has removed a number of grievances and a number of causes of complaint from Army pensioners, in particular those who are advanced in years. The Bill is highly technical and I shall not go into the details of it. I welcome, in particular, section 11 which makes provision for the granting of an allowance to a widow who, apparently, up to now in certain circumstances was not entitled to receive this allowance. We, on this side of the House, will give the Bill our wholehearted support.

Mr. Sanfey

I should like to join Senator Brosnan in welcoming this Bill. It goes some way towards ameliorating the conditions of pensioners and fills a long felt want in one respect, because it allows persons who had been turned down for pensions to reapply. I do not propose to go into the provisions of the Bill in detail. These have been very well explained in the Minister's memorandum. However, I am a little disappointed that this opportunity is not being availed of to extend the whole scope of disability pensions to the Defence Forces.

Senators may not be fully aware of the position in this respect, so I shall explain it briefly. A person who serves in the Defence Forces and who incurred a wound or injury can claim a pension in respect of that wound or injury in respect of any period of service. In the case of a person who, by virtue of Army service, has incurred a disease, a pension will be awarded only if that disease can be directly attributable to service during the Emergency years, or to service with the United Nations forces. There is one exception to that: in the case of TB, it is sufficient to be able to prove that the disease was aggravated by service during the Emergency.

However, I believe that, generally, in claiming disability pension for a disease, a person must be able to prove that that disease was contracted during the period of the Emergency service, or otherwise during United Nations service. In the case of the United Nations service, of course, the pension is recouped from the United Nations, so it is not a charge on the State.

I know of many cases of persons of all ranks who incurred disease by virtue of service in the Army and because they had not been able to prove that it happened during a specified period of years, they were denied any compensation for it. Having served through the Emergency myself. in the company of my colleague, Senator Ryan, I am well aware that Emergency service in the Army brought many hardships. What I cannot accept is that those hardships ceased on a certain date.

Throughout the post-war years officers and men were engaged in arduous exercises and manoeuvres such as river-crossing exercises and guard duty. Any of these conditions of service can be blamed by officers and men for the onset of diseases which they now find themselves subject to. Even at this date I am perfectly sure that the arduous Border duty which troops are engaged in will be the cause of many claims for pensions in future years. However, all these are at present outside the scope of the disability pensions and the various Bills governing pensions. I am disappointed that something has not been done to extend the scope of them. I hope the Minister will have a look at this situation.

I should like to make another point with regard to the administration of Army pensions. I should like to make it clear that I am not in any way referring to the Army Pensions Board, which consists of a couple of doctors and a civilian referee. It is the practice in the Army that, when a person claims a disability pension. witnesses are asked to come forward and testify to any circumstances they know of which may have given rise to the person's claim. This is laudable and very necessary. It is essential that a NCO or an officer should be able to bring forward witnesses, who served with him at various times throughout his service, to the Pensions Board in order to strengthen his claim and to testify on his behalf. What I object to is the manner in which this is done.

Any man is entitled to privacy as regards his medical condition, and, indeed, this privacy is always respected in the ordinary dealings between the Medical Corps and the personnel of the Army. However, when a person applies for a disability pension having left the Army, the full details of his medical claim, the most intimate details of his medical condition, are published in Routine Orders. For those of you who have not served in the Army I should explain that in every unit in the Army, items that concern and interest troops are published, generally daily but sometimes weekly in the case of small units, by means of a news sheet. This is a mimeographed sheet, known as Routine Orders, or Daily Routine Orders, which is displayed in all units and contains details of postings, promotions, duties and anything that should be the concern of the men in the unit. There is a custom, which I think the Minister should look at, that when anybody leaves the Army and applies for a disability pension, the full details of his claim, giving the most intimate details of his medical condition, are circulated to every unit in the Army.

This has been the cause of great embarrassment in the past to many officers and NCOs. I have received many representations about it and I should be glad if the Minister would look into the matter. I recognise that witnesses must be sought to testify before the Pensions Board regarding the conditions of service which a man claims led to his medical condition, but there must be a better way of doing it than this present practice, which is a breach of the confidentiality which any man can normally expect regarding his medical condition.

The last point I should like to make concerns the question of abatement of pensions. The whole question of abatement of pensions was, to a large extent, resolved by the Pensions Abatement Act, 1965, which had the effect of removing most of the abatement which then existed from the Public Service sector. For instance, Senators may be aware that, up to the time of the passing of that Bill, an officer or soldier who left the Army to take up a civilian job under a State body of any kind could not get his pension. Most of these abatements were removed by the Abatement of Pensions Act, 1965, but they still exist as far as Army pensioners are concerned. When a soldier, or officer, having served a life time in the Army, is awarded a service pension and subsequently claims successfully a disability pension, he finds to his dismay when the cheque arrives that he gets only the whole of the greater pension and half the lesser. I would appreciate if the Minister would look into this question because it is an anomaly and an anachronism.

I should like to take the opportunity of welcoming the Minister to the House. He is no stranger to the precincts but this is his first visit as Minister for Defence. I hope he will look into the points I have made and I hope he will be a frequent visitor with the goodies in the bag from time to time.

Dr. West

I should like to join with Senator Sanfey in welcoming the Minister for Defence on his first visit to the House, and also to thank Senator Sanfey for his insights into some of the problems connected with Army pensions. I should like to raise some matters contained in the Bill. I have not served in the Defence Forces but I have made numerous representations to the Minister's predecessor on matters concerning Army pensions and, therefore, have a little experience of one or two of the problems involved.

I have had to read back through former Army Pensions Bills and Defence Forces Pensions Bills and I have found about 20 different Bills since the State was founded. This is a ridiculous situation. Every time the Minister wishes to raise somebody's pension by 6p a year he must come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This legislation which governs Defence Forces pensions should be changed. This problem should not come before us year in year out. There is an Army Pensions Bill of some shape or other less than every two years. If one looks back at the Acts of the Oireachtas one would imagine that it is the only occupation that the civil servants who deal with the Army have. Army Pension Bills seem to come through every couple of years.

These problems should be dealt with more correctly under the Estimates for the Department of Defence. The Minister should have power, by order, to change Army pensions. This would make for smoother reviews of the problems involved. I cannot understand why, in a not very big matter of adjusting Army pensions so that they keep pace with modern life, the Minister should have to continually bring a Bill to the Oireachtas, go through all that the procedure involves and wait for six months to get the Bill drafted. It should be effected in a more efficient and straightforward way like pensions in other parts of the Civil Service. The legislation which governs this Bill should be changed in order to give the Minister the necessary power to make changes instead of having to come before the Oireachtas.

If one reads through Defence Forces Pensions Bills and Army Pensions Bills in the 1920s one will realise how important they were and why they concerned the Members of the Oireachtas so much. We have just been through a period of extreme military activity and those people who took part in this activity and their dependents had to be looked after. This situation has changed. I hope the Minister will bring in a wide-ranging Bill to change the situation so that he can deal with these problems, and those mentioned by Senator Sanfey, without continually bringing in new Bills.

I had frequent contact with the Minister's predecessor over the matter of Army pensions and anomalies in them. A problem I raised was that of the non-payment of retirement gratuities to single officers and men. The situation is that married officers and men who qualify for pensions, that is, those who have completed 12 years' service in the Army, are entitled to resettlement gratuities which are quite considerable. Married officers and men, by virtue of their marriage, are paid considerably more than single officers and men during their time of service. The single officer, who is compelled to live in barracks by Army regulations during his period of service, and has no option in this respect, is not paid any resettlement gratuity.

Most married officers and men during their time in the Army, if they serve for a long period, when approaching retirement are allowed to live out of barracks. They get civilian accommodation and live as full members of the community. They may at times be called abroad or have to do emergency service on the Border, but in peace time they live in houses outside barracks. Therefore, they are able to become part of the community in which they will live when they retire. This is not the case with single officers and men. They must live in barracks all the time and when they come to the end of their tour of duty they leave the Army with no gratuity.

This problem has received some attention in the media and in The Irish Times of 9th March, 1972, the comparison between the position of single officers and men and married officers and men was made by “Quidnunc.” I am not standing over his figures I am just reading them. “Quidnunc” says:

In terms of comparative pay, a single officer who serves his full tour, is paid some £20,000 less than a married officer of equivalent service.

He claims that the retirement gratuity to someone in this salary range can come to between £3,000 or £5,000, depending on his actual pay. I hope the Minister will rectify this situation.

In correspondence with his predecessor I got the following information. I asked for the numbers of single officers, NCOs and privates, who would qualify for retirement gratuities because they had served their 12 years, which is the minimum for an Army pension. On 22nd April, 1971, there were 25 officers and 168 NCOs and privates which in the context of the total Army pensions budget is small. I do not know what the figure is now; it is probably less because our marriage age is dropping. The position is that single officers are already getting paid considerably less than their married colleagues of the same rank. They have got to live in Army quarters during their whole tour of duty. I can see the reasons for doing this. If an Army has its barracks staffed and if it is to have a sufficient number of people living in them, then the people it picks on are the officers and men. They are the people who face a problem when they leave the Army service. Some of them may have dependent relatives. When a man of 60 or so leaves the Army, he may have to go out and set up house for himself with no help whatever from the Army. He has not generally got dispensation to live as a civilian during his last years; he has had to live in barracks, so he has a particular problem.

I had a long drawn out correspondence with the Minister's predecessor. I did not get anywhere. Therefore I hope, since this is the first opportunity for the present Minister to listen to this problem, that he will take a generous view and he will tell the House that he is prepared to review the position as far as single officers and men are concerned. After all, the numbers we are dealing with are not very large. They have probably decreased in total since 22nd April, 1971, and I do not see any reason why single people should be treated so differently from married people in this day and age. There is all this talk of equality. My colleague, Senator Robinson, has done a lot for the women. She hopes to do a lot more in the New Year. I want to do something for the single men.

I am a single man myself. I can appreciate their point of view. I am a person who lives in a community and I realise the need for a resettlement grant when the tour of duty is over. It is not an easy thing for a single person to leave the place that has been his whole life for the past 40 years or so and go out into the world if there is not the same financial help or a share of it that the married people have. I should like the Minister to look into this position and to say that he will review this problem of non-payment of gratuities and that he will look benevolently on the fate of these people who have not married and who leave the Army with no gratuity.

Everywhere we go we see the Minister's very laudable attempts to increase the strength of our forces. They need to be increased. They have fallen below the acceptable level and I think everybody would agree that the case for increasing the strength of our forces is well made and deserves support.

This is a very genuine gripe. Why should someone who may not get married have to suffer so seriously in comparison financially with his married colleagues? This is something which would deter people from entering the Defence Forces. It is an anomaly that should be rectified and the new Minister should look at this problem and should take a different view from that of his predecessor and should deal with this in a generous way. I am sure the Members of this House will support him in everything he will do to build up our Army and to make the lot of our soldiers and other members of the forces a better and more pleasant one. We realise the importance of their role in our national life. Let us see that we do whatever we can to make their life as pleasant as possible and to make their retirement as full and as happy as we can.

Mr. Moynihan

On behalf of the Labour Party I should like to welcome this legislation providing for improved superannuation provision for sick and disabled members of the Defence Forces and for the widows of deceased members. All of us realise that an Army career is a hazardous career exposing its members to many illnesses and many opportunities for injury. It is only right and proper that the State whom these people serve so generously should be generous when their livelihood is jeopardised through either illness or injury.

It is extremely disturbing to me to see that up to this no provision had been made for the widows of serving Army officers. This is completely out of line with everything that has been done in practically all other branches of public service for very many years. At all times provision has been made and legislated for in respect of the widows of public servants who died during duty. This is a belated effort to give justice to the widows of Army officers. I welcome it now that it has been introduced in this legislation. We look on it as very good social legislation and we recommend it very strongly to this House.

Dr. Martin

Very briefly, I would like to align myself in particular with Senator West's plea for the single soldier returning to civilian life on retirement. A point he did not mention is that the single man suffers a deprivation which the married man does not in the sense that he has the problem not only of readjustment but the problem of loneliness. This problem of loneliness entering into a society is aggravated by comparative indigence, which obviously will make the prospect of retirement rather bleak and dismal for somebody who has served his country for that length of time.

What strikes me as being even more radical—it had never struck me before until Senator West raised it— is that Bills like this constantly come before the two Houses. Our salaries, teachers' salaries and so forth are brought laboriously through the two Houses of the Oireachtas. These arrangements should be made by order. One of the things that has struck me since I became a Member of the Seanad is that a great number of very important enactments, particularly the new enactments relevant to the European Economic Community, are being rushed with indecent haste through the Houses and the plea is being made that there simply is not time for the House to deal with them. The time spent on this Bill could be better used for other areas of legislation. This is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Legislature at all.

I should like to support Senator West and to support the points made so eloquently by Senator Sanfey regarding the conditions of people serving in our Defence Forces and to join my voice to theirs in urging increased generosity and compassion on the part of the Minister in these areas.

Mr. Kilbride

In listening to the debate on this Bill it occurred to me that great emphasis was laid on the need for improving the lot of the single officer who is retiring. I certainly welcome the Bill. It is a tribute to the Minister that on the day he is welcomed into this House he brings in a Bill which will improve the lot of the serving soldier and the retired soldier.

There is another aspect of service which seems to be very much forgotten and of which, save for the Minister's reference to it in the Bill, no mention has been made here. I refer to the Old IRA. The service allowances of the Old IRA and those who gave their services when there were no medical officers in the Army and when there were no particular grades of officer commands, to which Senator Sanfey and Senator West have referred, should be improved. The number of Old IRA men of any rank who are still alive is very small indeed. I want to emphasise that there were hundreds of members of the Old IRA in the backwoods of Macroom, Ballinalee and Clonfin who will go down not only in Irish history but will be brought to the notice of all the countries of Europe when they read about the efforts that were made to secure the freedom of this country. Apart from those who were engaged in the actual battle, who sustained flying columns, cut routes, made maps and carried them long distances, blocked roads and ran despatches, and because there was no medical officer or no place for them to lie down they often spent the night at the back of a hedge or in a haystack——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not like to interrupt the Senator but the Bill refers only to certain members of the Defence Forces.

Mr. Kilbride

With respect to the Chair, I am referring to Old IRA men. They are mentioned in the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As I understand it, that matter is covered by military service pensions.

Dr. West

Surely former members of the Old IRA are mentioned on the fifth line of the Minister's speech?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They are all members of the Army.

Mr. Kilbride

The Bill includes improvements in the allowances for Old IRA men. Am I in order in proceeding on that line?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator may proceed.

Mr. Kilbride

The number of these people who will benefit from the Bill are very few indeed. Wet, cold and hunger was often the lot of the serving soldier in those days. Remember that they were serving soldiers of the Irish Republic. They were the men who by their efforts established this State. They were the men who by their efforts made it possible for us to have military posts, barracks, officers and NCOs, either married or single, and who made it possible to have their conditions considered here. They are the men who established this State in circumstances where they could not get dry clothing or full meals. Ninety per cent of them subsequently suffered from rheumatoid arthritis or other rheumatic ailments.

Many of them are now old age pensioners and septuagenarians and are bedridden. They are not able to attribute their ailments to the services which they gave their country and which activated their complaints. Many of them are now going around on crutches but they are not able to prove the same right to disability pensions as a result of their wounds as their counterparts of today. I would appeal to the Minister to institute an application of awards of pensions on a general scale in relation to the degree of disability. Surviving members of the Old IRA are a very small number of those who fought for this country and in 20 years' time there will be no voice raised on their behalf because today's surviving members will be gone to their eternal reward by then. I would appeal to the Minister to include these people in his regulations.

I would agree with Senator West that it is wrong that the Minister should not have the power to adjust the pensions and emoluments which Army officers are entitled to on retirement or otherwise. The Minister should be able to increase these pensions in accordance with what he considers appropriate to the circumstances obtaining in each case. It should not be necessary to bring in these Bills. I wish to support that plea to the Minister. I hope the Minister will be able to help those who gave such great services to this State and that he will be able to make the Army a better place so as to attract more recruits. I hope the Minister will be able to put the security forces of the State on such a high level that our Army will be the envy of other nations in Europe.

Mr. P. Browne

I shall not detain the House too long. First, I should like to join with other speakers in welcoming the Minister here today and to congratulate him on the first Bill he has brought into the House. Like my friend, Senator Kilbride, I am very interested in members of the Old IRA. Everything he has said is perfectly true. I know of a few in my own area.

I want to ask the Minister: is it a fact that there is a means test as far as members of the Old IRA are concerned? I know of one particular man who has a very small business and he is debarred from a pension because of this little business he has. I know that gentleman very well and every member of the Old IRA in Waterford can verify the activities of this gentleman down through the years. Because he has a small business he is deprived of a pension. I wonder would the Minister look into this. I will submit the name to him during the coming week and I would be grateful if he could do his best in the matter.

I should like to thank the Minister very sincerely for his kindness to me during his period as Minister for Defence. I am very interested in the Old IRA and I have made a few representations to the present Minister. I can say very sincerely that he has been most helpful. I thank him very much.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

First of all, I should like to say to my good friend, Senator Brosnan, that I am sorry if I did not give recognition to my predecessor's work in respect of this Bill as I did in the Dáil. That was entirely an oversight on my part. Full and generous recognition was given in the Dáil and at the Senator's suggestion I give it here now most generously and say that it is true that most of this Bill was prepared before I took up office. Apart from political matters, there is a friendship between my predecessor and myself. Whatever way that friendship can be turned towards helping the people whom we are discussing tonight it shall so be turned.

Having said that, I wish to thank the House for welcoming me back. I was here from 1957 to 1961, when the people of Louth decided that they would kick me upstairs for a few years, and perhaps it was good for me to take down my ego a little bit. I must admit that during that period I regarded the Seanad, and I am sure the hallowed walls will not fall in when I say this, as a place or state of punishment where I must suffer until I returned to the Dáil.

However, I now wish to deal more seriously with the Bill. Senator Brosnan mentioned the question of widows of military service pensioners who died in service. Since 1971 they have been receiving their due pension and this is merely legislation which is putting this legally at rights. While we awaited this legislation these ladies were receiving their proper pension. I want to emphasise—you will find it in the penultimate paragraph of my speech—that this was in respect of a situation where an officer or a soldier died in service. Long before that other widows were receiving their due pensions.

Senator Sanfey raised the question of wounds and disability pensions. If a man did not receive the wound or contract the disability during service in the 1916-1924 active service period or the 1939-1945 period, then he was outside the pale as far as this right was concerned. The position is that there is no provision for disease contracted by members of the Civil Service or the Garda Síochána. Many of these people have contracted quite serious conditions. I replied to questions on this matter in the Dáil in July this year. We have put up a proposal to cover this anomaly and I am hopeful something will come of it. I quote from the supplementary information I was provided with at that time:

The matter is at present being examined in consultation with the military authorities. If agreement is reached it will be necessary to obtain the sanction of the Minister for Finance and to amend the Defence Forces Schemes.

That work is proceeding and I would hope that we would get something from it.

While Senator Sanfey was speaking I thought of the situation where you might have a boy who was working as a mechanic in the Army and who contracted, as so many people contract, industrial dermatitis. I am advised by the Secretary of my Department that the position is that he would have the same rights under social welfare legislation when he left the Army. Another disease is anthrax, which people could contract when handling wool. Again, this is an occupational disease. Wool handlers and other people who deal in wool are prone to get this. In my own operations, before I became a Minister of State, I noted that there is also occupational dermatitis as a result of handling grain. I have very good friends who have had to leave that particular trade altogether as a result of this disease.

There are various disabilities or diseases that could be contracted in the Army too. Those I mention are common ones; there are others that are not quite so common. That is something that should be looked at and it is wise that this very good debate here tonight has brought it to my mind. It means that I will have to look at it quite seriously and see how we can improve matters.

Senator Sanfey then mentioned the question of abatement and the situation when an officer or a man has a disability pension and also a retirement pension. The position in the Public Service is that wherever this is applicable there is abatement. Under the consolidated Income Tax Act, 1967, section 340, the position is that, while other State personnel suffer full deduction of income tax on receiving their pensions, persons receiving disability pensions and retirement pensions under the Military Pensions Acts do not so suffer.

In fact, the manner of dealing with this means that the full amount of the disability pension is not subject to tax. This is an advantage that these pensioners have, and I point it out not in any spirit of suggesting that they are better off than anybody else but for another reason. Anybody who has had any experience of producing a pension scheme in an ordinary business knows how difficult this is. When one gets perhaps a dozen quotations from insurance companies on superannuation, you might have within the scope of these superannuation schemes a hundred variations. At this point you have a varied menu and you have a certain amount of money in your pocket which you can pay. That applies to the contribution from the employer and the contribution from the employees. I have had this experience myself. Then it is an occasion for a committee to sit down and decide what is the best bargain. Very often you find strong disagreement among the members of that committee, either from the employer side or the employee side on what is the best bargain. Therefore, if you have military service pensions and other pensions that run right through the whole spectrum of the Public Service, then you are going to have this. If they are different then obviously, in any case where one pension in one regard is less attractive than another, that can be pointed to as an anomaly.

I am not suggesting that military pensions are better than other State pensions. Senator Eoin Ryan, as a director of an insurance company, will know more about this than I do. You cannot pick out one particular provision: you must look at the whole scheme and see if one is better than the other.

Senator West raised the point of the Minister for Defence having to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas every time there is an increase in pension or a change in pension. That is not true. Looking back at the last budget the average increase payable on military service pensions and Old IRA pensions was 14 per cent with a variation for different cases. That is done by order and there is no need for the procedure suggested by Senator West. This is not an Increases Bill so far as pensions are concerned. It is a Bill for improving the arrangements for the review and the extent of a pensioner's disablement.

Senator Kilbride will be pleased with the fact that people will get another chance to have their pensions assessed. I have had to deal with constant complaints that persons were harshly treated. If a person is precluded by law at present from having a last look at his chances he will now get a further look.

Senator West did not mention the Consolidation Bill but he was to some extent harping on it. I asked the Secretary of my Department if he thought the Consolidation Bill was proper at this time and I am advised that, sadly, as has been stated a number of times tonight, a great many of our old veterans will not be with us much longer. A large number of them are involved in this and it might be that, with the existing regulations, this Bill will give a last chance to somebody who has been refused. This is the proper step at this point in time and at a future point a Consolidation Bill would be proper.

Senator West also raised the question of the non-payment of gratuities to single officers. A single officer has the advantage of getting two-thirds of his pension, approximately, while a married officer, although getting a married allowance, gets about half his pension.

Dr. West

It would probably work out at about the same.

Mr. Donegan

Not very far from the same, but in any case that matter is again being looked at and the process of equalisation of single and married rates of pay has been commenced with the military personnel in conjunction with other public servants. This will be looked at by the Minister for Finance. The continuance of that investigation should result in something such as the Senator desires, or would approximate to it. Senator Moynihan raised the question of widows under the Army Pensions Act, 1971. I have explained there was no need to wait for the legislation, but in order to put the matter right it had to be included in this Bill. Senator Martin agreed with Senator West, as I do, that we should endeavour to do our best.

Senator Moynihan also raised the question that no provision had been made up to now for the widows of officers. There has been provision made for them. The question of widows of military service pensioners whose husbands died in Army service was being dealt with and this has been done since 1971.

Senators Kilbride and Browne are worried about the Old IRA men. There was one serious point raised: the question of special allowances. A number of people get mixed up between military service pensions and special allowances. A military service pension is not subject to a means test, but you must be certified by your verifying officer and be accepted as a person who has given military service during the relevant period. That means that a man who might be a millionaire could have a military service pension. The question of a special allowance and a means test was raised by Senator P. Browne. There is a means test for special allowances, but all that is required for a person to be entitled to a special allowance— and it is important for people to know this—is that he was a member of the Old IRA in the relevant three months to July 11th, 1921.

It is wise to look at the number of people who are drawing special allowances. These special allowances are awarded by law. I receive a representation from any side of the House, duly send it out, get it back and read the report. If I do not agree, as Minister, with the particular report I can send it back. When all that would have been done and the whole matter thrashed out, it is a question of law. If the special allowance can be awarded it is so awarded. Quite a large number of persons have received special allowances and are subject to the means test. The following are the figures:

On 1st March, 1967, there were 9,062.

On 1st March, 1969, there were 10,400.

On 1st March, 1971, there were 11,049.

On 1st March, 1973, there were 10,766.

On 31st October, 1973, there were 10,665, which is the latest figure available.

Sadly, it appears that death is intervening in this regard.

I welcome representations in cases of poor persons and I use that phrase specifically and not in any derogatory manner. The recipient of a special allowance is a poor person who needs help. I gladly welcome representations from all sides of the House to ensure that no poor person who served his or her country well should be left in need. I have not got the figure right across the board for widows of military service pensioners, but it is of interest to note than on 31st March, 1973, such widows totalled 4,183, and were in receipt of an allowance. If a widow of a person who was in receipt of a military service pension is in poor circumstances please let us know and we will do our best for such a person.

On 31st March, 1967, there were 968 persons in receipt of wound and disability pensions and gratuities. In 1969, 903; 1971, 815; on 31st March, 1973, 778; and on 31st October, 1973, 780. From these figures it seems more pensions were awarded than deaths had removed.

Regarding allowances and gratuities to dependants, there were 535 in 1967, 554 in 1969, 644 in 1971 and then, I presume as a result of the Act of 1971, 4,836, of which 4,183 were widows. There were 4,931 on 31st October, 1973. There are other figures which it is hardly relevant to give to the Seanad. If anybody wants them they are very welcome to contact my office and I will ensure that they get full information.

That is all I wish to say on this Bill except that service pensions, whether they be in respect of the Permanent Defence Forces pensions as a result of service over the whole working life of a man, wound disability pensions. Old IRA pensions or special allowances, are in a field by themselves. They are different. It is necessary to recognise this fact. In certain instances, as one comes to do one's office work day by day and examine a particular case, one may say this is a very ungenerous situation compared with other pensions. The following day one sees a different one and one says this is more generous than the Civil Service would have.

I pointed to one particular aspect today and that is that in respect of the abatement at least they did not hammer them for tax. That is good. But then again the poor man who perhaps would be in receipt of a small military service pension as a result of Old IRA service or somebody in receipt of a special allowance probably would not be paying tax. Certainly the special allowance recipient would not be paying tax. The recipient of the military service pension might be paying tax and might be a very rich man.

I regard my Ministery as a national Ministry and one that is, except for the bullying times of by-elections, non-political. I will help this and the other House in any way I can. I will attend as best I can to the question of Army service pensions, gratuities, the good of the Permanent Defence Forces and the good of those who did so much for us in the past. I can do no more than that. With the goodwill of the Minister for Finance we will see improvements in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.