Vol. 78 No. 19
I move:
That the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) (No. 4) Scheme, 1974, prepared by the Minister for Defence with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service 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 25th day of July, 1974, be confirmed.
The scheme is designed to provide an alternative basis of calculation for the pensions of the widows of military officers who were not members of the contributory widows' pension scheme.
As the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes stand, such widows receive flat rate pensions which are the same for all widows of officers of a particular commissioned rank and which vary only from rank to rank. For other public service groups, the pensions payable to widows of persons who were not members of the contributory pension scheme are fixed at one-half of what the contributory pension would have been. The contributory pension is one-half of the employee's own pension which is directly based on his pay and service and, therefore, both types of pension vary directly according to pay and service.
It is desirable to bring these flat rate pensions more into line with the pensions of other public service widows as regards varying the amount according to service. There are difficulties involved in doing this within the framework of the Defence Forces pensions code since an officer's retired pay, while varying with service and rank, is not directly pay-and-service related. The purpose of this scheme is to calculate the pension of a military officer's widow by applying an appropriate percentage for each rank to the retired pay which would be payable to her husband if he were alive on the 1st July, 1974.
The flat rates, inclusive of the 1974 budget increases, are being retained as a floor to ensure that no widow would suffer a reduction in pension. At the maximum of the retired pay scales the percentages provide modest improvements in these pensions.
I commend the scheme to the Seanad.
I take it that the annual adjustment each year in the budget will bring parity in the case of such widows?
Yes. The scheme is worked on a percentage basis.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to consolidate the legislation to deal with the pensions of members of the Defence Forces. I have tried to go through some of the previous legislation tracking down changes in the Defence Forces pension schemes over a number of years. It is a veritable jungle. Every year there are Bills, orders or motions concerning Defence Forces pensions. I am sure all Senators agree with me that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the members of the Defence Forces are treated fairly. It would help the legislators and save time and trouble to this House if every time there was a change in the pension scheme we did not have to have a Bill, a motion or an order. Consolidating legislation should be brought in.
In the early days of the State it was necessary to have frequent discussions on pensions. Many people who served in the War of Independence, who fought later on in the civil war or who served in the Army during the early days of the State felt aggrieved that their cause was not being taken up and there was a lot of discussion by both Houses of the Oireachtas in setting up pension schemes which would keep them happy. While I certainly would like to see our Defence Forces having a pension scheme on a par with every other branch of the State service it is about time the method of legislating for Defence Forces' pension schemes was changed. I would like to raise one matter now which I have raised before with the Minister for Defence and with his predecessor, and that is the question of gratuities for single officers and men.
I made the case before that people who have served in the Army all their lives and who are single officers and men also have a re-entry problem to society, when they retire. I do not think they should be penalised by failing to receive the gratuity that is given to married officers and men who have reached a certain number of years' service. Perhaps the Minister would look into this again. I have been flogging this point for some time and it is something that should be looked at. It is about time the method of legislating for Defence Forces pensions was changed and consolidated so that it would be unnecessary to have frequent motions and Bills. Our forces must have first-class pension schemes and attractive conditions of service.
I would like to endorse what Senator West has said about the need—which I think Senator Ryan pointed to last week and, indeed, I said something about it myself—for clarification of the entire pension code as it affects members of the Defence Forces, both serving and retired. I said last week that quite a lot of Senators had asked me what the difference was between an Army pension and a Defence Forces pension. It is not necessary to take up the time of the House by explaining what the difference is but there is, in fact, a difference.
Senator West has emphasised the need for consolidating this legislation, I think more from the point of view of the legislator. I am more concerned with clarifying the pension schemes for the benefit of members of the Defence Forces and, indeed, their widows. As Senator West said, and as I know from my own experience, the schemes are an absolute jungle. Indeed, a lot of the pension amendments which have been brought in over the years, as was the one last week, were brought in to relate certain special cases which are now dead and gone. These amendments are now obsolete. It is an absolutely intolerable task for any person without legal knowledge to try to wade through the pension regulations. I appeal to the Minister to do what he can to consolidate these regulations into a readable and up-to-date form for the benefit of the people who need to consult them from time to time.
I do not think the occasion should pass without paying tribute to the Minister for the steps he has taken to remove the various anomalies in the regulations. This is at least the third, and possibly the fourth, time he has come into the Seanad with amendments of this nature which are brought in to rectify injustices which have existed. There are many other anomalies remaining in the Defence Forces pension schemes and other pension schemes which affect the Defence Forces. The Minister might consider setting up a commission drawn from officials of his Department and serving officers to look into the whole question of pensions with a view, as suggested by Senator Ryan last week, to bringing them into line with pensions in the public sector generally. I welcome this amendment.
I would like, first of all, to thank the Seanad for the kind way in which they have received me. They always seem very kind to me when I come here and I am thankful for that.
Senator West raised very valid points. The first point I would like to deal with is the question of pensions in relation to people who are Old IRA pensioners, people who fought during our troubled times. That does not arise as the matter before the House is only in respect of permanent Defence Force pensioners. He used a phrase which brings up one of our difficulties and said he would like to see these pensions on a par with civil and public service pensions generally. I think Senator Sanfey made the same point in different language. Our problem is that we cannot compare like with like, when like is not like. Our position is that the conditions of service in the Army are, of necessity, different from the conditions of service in the Civil Service. The position as it is, is that we have, perhaps, an officer serving until he is 54. A civil servant normally serves until he is 65 unless he dies or resigns. We have an officer serving until he is 63. We have men serving for 21 or 31 years to entitle them to two different rates of pension, so that they are not alike. It is very difficult to get them on a par when such is so. However, they do compare quite well with Civil Service pensions. Of course, I am bound by the fact that I must toss everything to the Department of the Public Service who are bound to adhere to equity and fair play, so that they must try to compare the conditions of service and the pensions received in the Army with the conditions of service and pensions received in the rest of the public sector. If they wanted to achieve absolute simplicity and success they would say to themselves: "We have produced an exactly similar situation." As I have pointed out, the conditions of service are not similar so, therefore, the pensions cannot be similar, but the maximum pension payable to a civil servant is 50 per cent of his pay and to qualify for this he must have 40 years' service and be at least 60 years of age. The pension of Army officers varies from 48.7 per cent of pay, for a married commandant to 62.6 per cent for a major-general who is Chief of Staff, and 52.1 per cent for a major-general, who is not Chief of Staff. Maximum pension is payable after 24 years for a captain and after 27 years for a major-general, as compared with 40 years' full pension for a civil servant. After 21 years' service the pension for men varies from 35.3 per cent for a company quartermaster-sergeant to 38.2 per cent for a corporal. After 31 years, the pension varies from 47.1 per cent of pay for a company quartermaster-sergeant to 53.4 per cent for a private.
The question of gratuities for single men has been a very thorny point for years. It was raised by Senators West and Sanfey. The position is that the thinking in the past was that because the pension of a single man was a greater percentage of his pay than for a married man he should not be entitled to a gratuity. That is being looked after. Gratuities for single officers and soldiers, in addition to their pensions, will be introduced on a phased basis. The first of these phases took place on the 1st June, 1973. When the pay equalisation process is completed I hope to make an amending scheme which will reflect the various stages of the process by providing that single officers and men who left the Army on or after the 1st June, 1973, will receive 17½ per cent of the difference between the single and married rates of pension and 17½ per cent of the gratuity payable to married personnel. The levelling up of retirement benefits as between single and married personnel in accordance with subsequent stages in pay equalisation will also be provided for. That will happen and is something which must go through the Department of the Public Service. We are trying to reach the desired stage that Senators West and Sanfey wish.
In relation to the question of consolidation of the legislation, I wish it were consolidated. The more I look at it the more bemused I get and the more difficult it is for me to understand it. I would point out that only specific improvements come to the Seanad or the Dáil. The position is that if officers and men get an increase in their pensions in the Budget that does not have to go to the Dáil or the Seanad. It is only specific improvements in conditions that must be dealt with in both places. It is not quite as complicated as it seems. As soon as possible we shall consolidate the law but I think that will be a lengthy process. The Bill that will be produced in the end will be a lengthy and detailed one.
I want to express my thanks to the Seanad. I will make every effort to increase the pensions of the serving soldiers and officers.
