The Bill, of which I am moving the Second Reading, is intended to remove a very great hardship on a very small number of people, comparatively speaking. It will be necessary, in order that the Dáil may fully understand the scope of the Bill, to give a short explanation of how this disability came about. There was passed in the year 1920 an Act in the British Parliament called the Pensions (Increase) Act, and that applied to certain teacher pensioners among others. But there were very limiting conditions in that Act. For instance, any person who had means up to £150 per annum, if single, or £200, if married, would get no increase whatsoever. It also contained a provision to the effect that only what are called pre-war pensions would be increased. It happened that in 1914 there was a new National Teachers' Pension Scheme introduced. Although it had been actually agreed upon twelve months before, that scheme did not come into operation until 1st October, 1914, and as a result it was deemed, by the British Treasury, to be a post-war scheme. The effect of that technicality—it was purely a technicality—was this: that when these old teachers who were on pension came to have their increases calculated, the increases were not calculated on the actual pensions which the teachers had, but on the pensions which they would be deemed to have had if the new regulations did not come into force. The reason of that was that because the new scheme happened to come into force on the 1st October, 1914, a few months after the war started, it was deemed, for the purposes of the Act, to be a post-war pension scheme. Immediately the Provisional Government took over control here this anomaly was brought to their notice, and the late General Collins made a promise to the pensioned teachers that he would remove, at the first opportunity, this anomaly. That promise was implemented by the then Minister for Finance (the President) in the Superannuation and Pensions Act of 1923, by the introduction of Section 6, which declared that although the Teachers' Pension Rules came into operation on the 1st October, 1914, they would be deemed to have come into operation before the war for the purposes of the Act. But, for some reason that I cannot understand, a new disability was created in that Act, and it is this new disability which the present Bill proposes to remove. Sub-section 4 of Section 6 of that Act reads as follows:—
No increase of pension shall be payable by virtue of this section in respect of any period during which the pensioner is not ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.
This Bill proposes to repeal that section, and that is all it proposes to do.
The effect of putting that section in —and I think Deputies will agree, when they hear the facts, that it is a very peculiar section—is that no matter what part of Ireland outside the Saorstát, or even England or Scotland, pensioners may reside in, they are paid their ordinary pension from the Saorstát Teachers' Pension Fund, and they are also paid the increase which they may have got under the old regulations made by the British Treasury, but, in case there was any little increase coming to them as a result of this 1923 Act, they are barred out from receiving it by this sub-section.
As to the total number of people affected, I am not quite clear. Possibly the Minister for Finance may tell us later whether my information is altered by his answer to-day. I was under the impression that the total number of people would be approximately thirty. I am not quite sure whether the thirty which he mentioned in his answer to Deputy Nagle to-day includes also the twenty-five resident in the Six County area or whether the thirty are in addition to the twenty-five. In any case, it does not make very much difference one way or the other. We got a return from the Minister for Finance in December last, on the motion of Deputy Sir James Craig, which gave the names and the actual sums paid to 25 people who were affected and who were living in the Six County area. Most of these were old teachers who taught in the Donegal area or around the north of Ireland, and who, when they retired on pension, went to live in Derry or towns in the northern area. Some of them are natives of that area and, having completed their term as teachers, they went back to live with friends and neighbours. I find that the average sum paid to these 25 persons was £43, plus an increase in the case of 12, averaging £8. In other words, the total average pension of these 25 people is £48. Assuming they got the amounts set out in the return—they could get higher, but that would be subject to the disability with regard to means and so on—the average would be £11 for the 25, giving them an average pension of £59 each.
As far as the 25 in the return are concerned, the total cost in any year under this Bill would be £275. That sum does not fall on the Exchequer. It would be paid out of the Teachers' Pension Fund. Teachers who are in the service contribute 4 per cent. of their salaries to the Pension Fund. The fund also derives its income from investments and endowments set aside when the Pension Fund was established in 1879. In addition, there is an annual contribution from the State. The contribution from the State is set out in the Estimates for this year. It is in the form of a grant in aid. There is a fixed grant in aid of £29,000 this year. There is a further grant in aid based on 15 per cent. of the actual expenditure of the fund in any one year. For example, if, in round numbers, £300 was paid out of the Teachers' Pension Fund to implement this Bill and give a small measure of relief to these old pensioners, 15 per cent. of the £300 would be contributed by the State. That is not a very big load for the State to bear in order to remove this very great hardship on the few old teachers who are affected by this particular measure.
I have searched through all the other Pension Acts that have been passed in the Dáil and I have not been able to find in the case of any other class of pensioners a disability in regard to residence outside Saorstát Eireann. That disability refers only to the old pensioned teachers who were covered by Section 6. Strange to say, the disability does not apply to any others but those governed by that section. I do not know what the person who originally inserted this section had in mind, but it might be asked why, when this measure was going through, we did not see it and object to it. There is an explanation, possibly two explanations. In the first place, we were pressing for a very long time to get the promise made by General Collins carried out by the Dáil. The matter was held up for various reasons and finally, at the end of 1923, we got a spate of measures when there was no time to consider them. It was practically put up to us that if we objected we would get nothing at all. That was one reason. The other reason why I did not object was that I held then, as I hold now—although others hold to the contrary—that Saorstát Eireann included all Ireland. Therefore, I was not particular. I took it for granted that if a man lived outside the Twenty-Six County area he would get his pension or whatever little increase was coming to him as a matter of course. I stated when the matter was brought to my notice, that that was my reading of it. Since then an Interpretation Act was passed which definitely defined that Saorstát Eireann, for the purposes of legislation, did in fact mean the Twenty-Six Counties. Because of that the Ministry of Finance has interpreted the sub-section which I am anxious to have repealed, as preventing them, evidently, from paying this little increase to the pensioners who, after retiring, went to live in some part of the Six County area.
There can be no other reason why the pensions should not be paid to those except the Ministry of Finance is not at liberty to do so, in view of this section which, to my mind, prevents the Minister for Finance from paying these increases. I do not think there is any principle involved in this outside the actual principle of doing justice and giving fair play to men and women. The majority of them are women who gave a long period of service and have very poor remuneration and reward as a result of that public service. It might be argued that it is a sound principle that all who receive pensions from the State should spend that money in the State. The poorest class of pensioner you have should not be picked out as the only one to whom the principle would be applied. If they are paid their ordinary pensions, less the increases which the Pension Increases Act gave them, and if they are paid the increases which they got under the British Treasury regulations, there is no reason, as far as I can see, for not paying in addition this small sum which would go to them as a result of the implementing by the Government of the promise made to the old pensioners by General Collins. I am sure when the late General Collins made that promise that he would remove that technicality which would prevent the teacher pensioners getting what was obviously due to them, he had not the idea of excluding 25 or 30 who happened to live in the Six County area. That is in effect what this sub-section does. It may be thought that if this was removed there would be no guarantee that others would not go outside the area and live, say, in the Six County area and spend their money there. Let us consider for a moment the class of pensioner with which we are dealing. What possible object could one of those have in going outside the area to live? Is it to escape income tax? Not one of them comes anything near the lowest limit of income subject to income tax.