We are in favour of this Bill. It is desirable that the multifarious schemes for pensions and superannuation in the public service should be dealt with in a simpler and more flexible way. It certainly does not mean that these measures should have to be always dealt with by a Bill in the Oireachtas. It seems desirable that the Minister should have this power to make schemes without having to come back each time to the Oireachtas. I assume that schemes of this kind will be made by order which can be discussed by the Oireachtas.
I am glad to welcome the Minister for Lands but I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not present. I would hope that he would reconsider the question of those widows whose public-servant husbands died before 23rd July, 1968. When these schemes were originally introduced, widows were not covered at all. When it was decided, very late in the day, that widows of public servants would receive a pension, even a small one, those whose husbands had died before the introduction of the scheme were not covered at all. The present position is that these widows, of whom there were 2,177 at the end of 1972, get half of the pension that their husbands would have had. The average pension that these widows received in 1972 was around £300. Without the ravages of inflation since then, the amount would clearly be greater. Nonetheless, these pensions are still small and amount to only a quarter of their late husbands' salaries. These are called ex-gratia pensions. “Ex-gratia” is a misnomer because in the case of widows whose husbands died after 23rd July, 1968, the State paid half of the pension. The position now is that the State pays the same half that they would have paid in any event but the other half, which is paid for by contributions, does not exist. These widows are living at a standard which is well below that which ought to be expected in the case of the public service or any section of the economy.
Some of these widows are over 70 years of age and a large number are over 80 years of age. They are a declining group inevitably and sadly. They have reiterated that they are perfectly willing to pay the full 40 year contributions at ½ per cent of their late husbands' salaries which were required to get the full pensions that other widows get. One wonders why this arrangement has not been agreed to.
The Minister for Finance has said that the poorer widows could not afford to pay this lump sum in contributions. I believe an arrangement to this end was made and the Minister refused to sanction the arrangement. An arrangement was made that the pension could be paid into the Bank of Ireland until such time as the total contributions had been paid, which would take a year and nine months, and then the bank would pay the increased pensions to the widows. One wonders why this was not agreed to.
The question has arisen as to who would pay for these increased pensions. Actuaries decided that this would cost a 1¼ per cent contribution on all existing public servants in order to enable these pre-1968 pensions to be paid in full. The Civil Service Staff Associations refused to pay this amount. It is regrettable that it was put to them in this way. It might well have been explained that it was not to be a permanent 1¼ per cent additional superannuation, that for obvious reasons, it would be a declining factor, that after a certain number of years had elapsed there would be no pre-1968 widows left. Therefore, to have put it in this way, asking to have a permanent impost on them of 1¼ per cent, was asking for a refusal.
The Minister for Finance says that the cost in capital terms of paying these pensions in full would be £3,250,000. He talks about everyone claiming more concessions that the country cannot afford. He says that the same people who claim these concessions complain when tax is increased and so on. But this is a particular case where the Minister should accept that he has a responsibility. These are the widows of public servants who are under the immediate control of the Minister, both as Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service. Any Minister for Finance or for the Public Service has a special responsibility to see that those who have served the State faithfully do not suffer unnecessary financial deprivation and, in particular, that their widows should have a reasonable standard of living. The Minister cannot and should not evade his responsibility by talking in general terms of how everyone is claiming concessions and, at the same time, is unwilling to pay for them.
One wonders why it would not be possible to divide up the cost. Apparently the Minister has been considering either making the staff associations pay the full amount by a 1¼ per cent increase in their superannuation payments or making the State pay the full amount—another £3 million. One wonders why nobody has considered dividing the cost—say about one-third each. Let the State pay one-third of the cost, an extra £1 million, and let the civil service staff associations pay one-third, maybe 0.4 per cent extra superannuation. Perhaps if it was put to them in that way they would be willing to agree. Let the widows concerned pay the contributions their husbands were unable to pay because the scheme did not exist at that time. I am sure it would be practicable to introduce some kind of scheme which would be acceptable to all parties.
One is entitled to mention that the husbands of pre-1968 widows, during their period of service as public servants, paid 3¾ per cent of their salaries for a pension which they never got because they died too soon. If they had lived there would be much higher pensions payable. The post-1968 widows get four times what the pre-1968 widow gets. There is a saving all along the line because people did not survive long enough to get their pensions or to get the benefit of the 3¾ per cent superannuation which they paid in order to qualify for their pensions.
The State has a responsibility for its public servants. The Minister should look at the matter again, not from the point of view simply of what the cost is—talking in terms of millions or 1¼ per cent or whatever—but in terms of how best an arrangement can be come to so that all the parties concerned, that is, the widows whose standard of living is insufficient, the existing public servants and the State itself, how they can all come together and agree on some scheme which will do rather more justice than is being done at the moment. One last word: I should point out the obvious fact that the present so-called ex gratia scheme costs the State little or nothing because these very small pensions payable to the pre-1968 widows involve at the same time a consequent saving to the State in widows' and old-age pensions. In other words, the actual net cost to the State of this ungenerous provision they have made is probably little or nothing. I would urge the Minister to speak to the Minister for Finance about this and to suggest that he ought to try and see whether anything can be done for these unfortunate people.
