Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 1975

Vol. 79 No. 12

Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Bill, 1975 (Certified Money Bill): Second Stage.

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

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

Retirement benefits for former members of the Permanent Defence Force, including the Army Nursing Service, and the Chaplaincy Service are provided for in Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes made by the Minister for Defence, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Act, 1932, as amended and adapted. Section 4 of the 1932 Act prescribes that no pension scheme shall come into force unless and until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been confirmed by resolution of each House. Section 2 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1968 exempts from this statutory requirement of confirmation pension schemes which provide for increases in retirement benefits arising out of increases in Army pay or increases in public service pensions generally. Other schemes must come before each House for confirmation. This procedure takes up the time of the Houses discussing the detailed schemes, many of which though, perhaps, complex in form are of no great significance. It may also entail lengthy delays for people who are waiting to be paid the benefits. In practice, the whole trend of the schemes has been towards improvements.

This Bill proposes to dispense entirely with the requirement of confirmation by resolution and will thus facilitate both the Legislature and the beneficiaries of schemes. The Seanad will still be able to keep a watch on matters because of the provision requiring schemes to be laid before each House, with power to annul them.

I may mention also that Senators have on occasions expressed the view that they could well be spared the necessity for confirming these pension schemes.

I should like to add that this Bill has nothing to do with special allowances, and nothing to do with a means test. It is merely a cleaning up of the legislation and putting things in order so that it is possible to pay pensions to people quicker.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Lenihan

This is a welcome improvement on procedures that have heretofore been in operation in regard to payment of Defence Forces pensions. There is no opposition to the Bill from this side of the House. We welcome the Bill and regard it as a desirable and sensible improvement in relation to procedure and the expedition of payment.

Mr. Sanfey

I also welcome the Bill, on behalf of our party. As the Minister explained, its purpose is to streamline procedure for promulgating pension schemes in the Defence Forces. Although it entails only procedural changes it will, nevertheless, have the effect of speeding up the granting of pensions and anything that can be done in this line is welcome.

When the Minister spoke here previously I availed of the opportunity of asking him to endeavour to consolidate the mass of legislation relating to Army pensions into a simple and readable form. In this connection I was pleased to note that when replying to the debate on this Bill in the Dáil last week the Minister adverted to this problem and said he hoped to get down to the task soon.

I wish to bring to the Minister's notice an injustice that exists in regard to Army pensions, more so than to pensioners in other branches of the State service, and it is the question of abatement of some pensions. Members of the Defence Forces in receipt of service pensions and disability pensions do not enjoy both pensions. It is the practice that they get only the whole of the greater pension and half the lesser one. This is an injustice and, as a public representative, I have received representations from people who feel that this is unfair discrimination against members of the Defence Forces. I should like to congratulate the Minister on the substantial improvements he has brought about in conditions in the Defence Forces, generally, since he came to office two years ago. I wish him success in his future efforts.

Mr. West

I welcome this Bill. On numerous occasions when speaking about pensions in the Defence Forces I suggested that legislation of this nature should be introduced. I am glad the Minister got round to doing it. It will save time when dealing with every small change in the emoluments paid as pensions to our Defence Forces. I support Senator Sanfey in his plea to the Minister, and his Department, to consolidate the mass of legislation involving Army pensions. I am interested in problems dealing with Army pensions and I believe everybody agrees that our Defence Forces must be adequately remunerated and when they retire they must receive adequate pensions. We must keep our Army strength up and to do this we have to pay our personnel. We have to ensure that when they retire they are in the same category as people who retire from the civil service. They have pensions which adequately keep pace with the cost of living and the price index and with inflation.

Up to now every small change has had to be dealt with by a separate piece of legislation in the House. It shocked me when I traced back through the legislation to find out exactly how much legislation there had been over the years. I presume the reason for this initially was that Army pensions were a contentious issue in the 1920s when there was a dispute as to who would get the money, when the issue was a political one. When one party was in power one group of people got pensioned off and when another party was in power another group of people got pensioned off. We might reflect that, after a period of civil strife such as the 1920s, one of the best ways of getting people to give up the gun and to take up a peaceful way of life was to pay them off. Our Army pensions legislation and some of our old IRA pensions legislation was directed towards this end. If it achieved its end, then it certainly was worthwhile.

We may indeed again be faced with a situation, in another part of the country, in which similar measures are necessary. However, this period is over in the Republic and, therefore, it is time for a measure of this nature, which allows the Minister to lay an order before both Houses of the Oireachtas, to be brought in instead of continuing to introduce a new Bill every time a small change needs to be made. Inflation is increasing at such a rate nowadays that such Bills have been very frequent.

I should like to ask the Minister, as I have asked him before, about an anomaly concerning the position of single men in the Forces. It concerns the non-payment of gratuities. Up to recently when a married officer retired he would get his pension which was a certain proportion of his salary, and then he would get a gratuity to allow him to settle into civilian life. Perhaps he had to buy a house because he had been living in barracks and this gratuity was to help him and his family move into civilian life. These gratuities were not paid to single men. Of course the position for single men was particularly difficult in that they were compulsorily in barracks. Often the married personnel had moved out of barracks in their later years of service. Single men remained in barracks and, therefore, they had to make the bigger adjustment when they moved to civilian life and settled down. No gratuity was paid to single men. On other occasions I have gone through the details and given the Minister figures concerning the number of people involved. The total expenditure would be minimal and the number of people involved relatively small because of course gratuities apply only to people who have done a long term of service—15 or 20 years. I should like to ask the Minister if he has made any provision for the payment of gratuities to single men. We have spent much time in our legislation ensuring that married people and women are not discriminated against. Why should we persist in discriminating against single men? As a bachelor I feel this particularly myself and I hope that the Minister will look into the problem of the payment of resettlement gratuities to single men.

Along with Senator Lenihan and Senator Sanfey, I welcome the Bill. It is necessary and will save time and trouble. I hope, as Senator Sanfey has said, that the Minister and his Department will get round to the rather big task of consolidating all our Defence Forces pensions legislation.

Mr. Moynihan

I welcome this legislation, which is aimed at making more expeditious the adjustment of retirement pensions for Army personnel including the Army nursing service and the chaplain service. The existing legislation to some extent created delays in the adjustment of the pensions of retired personnel. In view of the rapid rate of inflation it is absolutely essential that the pensions and retirement allowances of former members should be kept in line with current rates of salaries and wages. The Bill will do a good job and I hope it will end any frustration that existed heretofore because of the late adjustment of pensions.

Dr. Martin

I should like to support two points made, first of all, the plea made by Senator Sanfey and Senator West for the consolidation of legislation concerning the payment of retired military personnel. Senator Sanfey's point about abatement and the fact that the two pensions cannot be granted simultaneously is one well taken, and also Senator West's point about the situation of the unmarried soldier who is retiring and is not granted a gratuity. Senator West has frequently spoken of this subject. We should give him total support in this matter. Bringing piecemeal measures again and again before the Houses of the Oireachtas in the case of the Army, when we do not do it in the case of the civil service, is an anomaly in the first place. In the second place, it is important to note that soldiers are called upon to place themselves uniquely in hazardous circumstances. The unmarried soldier in particular has a problem in settling back into civilian life. Every possible effort should be made to help him in that regard because there are problems of loneliness and readjustment. Those problems should not be increased by difficulties, particularly the difficulty in regard to gratuities which seems to be one of discrimination. At the end of a long career of service which involves danger, hazards, sacrifices and very often unusual social deprivation such as loneliness and separation from family, the question of double pension should not be questioned. Both pensions should be granted.

I should again like to support Senator West's suggestion that there should be a consolidation of all laws and regulations relating to emoluments, pensions and retirement gratuities.

Mr. Harte

I am very pleased that the Minister had the foresight to see that it was necessary to have a proper procedural arrangement in this respect. At the present rate of inflation the Minister might have had to come back on about four occasions between now and the end of the year. Secondly, I should like to support Senator Sanfey's point regarding the question of abatement. People who work for the State leave themselves open to certain risks and are absent from their homes at certain times. They are also forced to pay social welfare contributions and yet have no rights in that respect.

The State seems to have the lien on the benefit by deciding that she can take the greater of the two. In that respect, this is an anomalous situation. The situation may not be exactly as I have stated, but if I got Senator Sanfey's message right, most people will agree that this anomalous situation should be tackled.

Miss Walsh

I, too, welcome the Bill. The security ensured in it to Army personnel will no doubt have a great effect on future recruitment. In these times recruitment is not easy.

I particularly welcome the section in which the Minister has seen fit to give recognition to members of the Defence Forces who have acted in a nursing capacity. This is long overdue. They are the cinderellas of the Defence Forces, who are very often forgotten and who carry out a very worthwhile service. The widows of Old IRA pensioners should also be amply looked after. In general, I welcome the Bill.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Donegan)

I want to thank Members for their acceptance of this Bill. Senator Sanfey mentioned the question of consolidation of legislation. In this regard, there is nothing stopping us except that it is an enormous job. We have a huge volume of different Acts of Parliament. While consolidating all these Acts would simplify things and make it easier for Senators and Deputies to examine them, it would not improve things. While we are very anxious to do this the position is that since 1969 the senior staff capable of doing this work have not been available in the Department of Defence. As soon as they are available, the work will be done. While it is a great irritation that one must look up five or six Acts of Parliament to get what one wants, consolidation of itself would not change existing benefits. Changes in benefits occur only as a result of a decision by the Government, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, and a proposal by the Minister.

Senator Sanfey referred to the actual money received by a person entitled to a disablement pension and an Army pension. He does not get the total amount of the two pensions; he gets the greater pension plus one-half of the lesser. The whole of the disablement pension is free from tax.

The pension code is very involved. One could look at things and say they should be different. A civil servant may find himself in the same position. When his two pensions come to five-sixths of his salary, he gets no more. The Army man is in the position that he gets the greater pension plus one-half of the lesser. This normally works out at around the same figure. We cannot have one group of pensioners receiving more than another. I am not putting this subject aside. I will certainly examine it. My point is that they are different.

Army pensions must be different from civil service pensions because Army personnel are serving under different conditions and retiring ages differ from those in the civil service. An Army officer may retire at 56, 58, 60 years; if he is an engineer or a doctor, he may stay until he reaches 65, but a civil servant may serve on to 65. So whether you want pensions to be exactly equal, whether you want them to be better or worse, of necessity ipso facto they are basically different. If there is an injustice on the abatement matter I will certainly look at it.

Senator West made the point about the single soldier—and he made the point that he was single himself. I am sure we all wish him not too long in that position and hope he will take unto himself a lovely lady.

Dr. West

I am very happy as I am.

Mr. Donegan

We would all love to see the Senator happier. In relation to gratuities for single Army personnel the present position is as follows. Gratuities for single personnel in addition to pensions are being introduced on a phased basis to correspond with the various stages in the equalisation of pay between single and married personnel. All single persons leaving the Army after 1st June, 1973, will receive an additional 17½ per cent of the difference between the single and married rates of pension and a gratuity equal to 17½ per cent of the gratuity payable to their married counterparts. All single soldiers leaving the Army after the 1st January, 1974, will receive the same pensions and gratuities as their married counterparts, and all single officers leaving the Army after 1st December, 1974, will receive an additional 50 per cent of the difference between the pensions and gratuities payable to them and to their married counterparts. We are working towards equal pay for all single and married personnel. The Department of the Public Service has worked out the scheme with my Department. While there is an anomaly at the moment, I am happy that we are moving towards wiping out that anomaly.

Dr. West

Did the Minister say that the gratuity for the single man would be only 17½ per cent of the gratuity for the married man?

Mr. Donegan

I said we are moving in slices. All single persons leaving the Army after 1st June, 1973, will receive an additional 17½ per cent of the difference between the single and married rates of pension and a gratuity equal to 17½ per cent of the gratuity payable to their married counterparts. As time goes on, that will be improved.

Dr. West

That is a small slice to start.

Mr. Donegan

I agree, but there is a movement towards making the single person equal to the married person as far as that gratuity is concerned. It is a question of time. We have our timetable. We have agreed it with the Department of the Public Service and in time all will come right.

Senator Moynihan welcomed the Bill and I thank him for his kind words. Senator Martin also made the point, which I have answered, about the single soldiers. Senator Harte made the point about Army pensions and their difference.

It is my desire to provide everything for the Army and the personnel under my charge in the very best way and to get the very best for them. I am sure everyone will agree that the various retirement dates of serving personnel create a problem. If civil servants retire at different dates and at different ages from the service, of necessity their pensions must be different. As Minister for Defence my personal desire would be to have Army pensions better. You can compare like with like; you cannot compare like with unlike. Therefore, the situation is that they will be different. Any soldier or officer, whoever he might be, can ignore that part of the pensions code he feels is not fair to him and only mention what he knows is in his favour. That is only human nature. When we examine this as a whole we must look at both sides of the coin and my desire is to do so. I hope to take the matter up with the Government and see to it that our serving soldiers—who are doing a marvellous job—will get the very best.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.