Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 7

PRIVATE TEACHTAS' BUSINESS. - SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1925.—SECOND STAGE.

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.

That will not be an impediment in the future.

The difference they would get would not pay the cost of removal from one part of the country to another. It would hardly pay their rail expenses. This expenditure, through which it is necessary to do justice to those old-age pensioners, will be a gradually diminishing sum, because no pensioner who has retired since the 4th August, 1920, can benefit in any way by any of the Pension Increases Acts. I would like to emphasise that. No new pensioners can come on to the lists as a result of this measure. It can only apply to those who were on the Pension List in August 1920. Of course teachers generally are 65 years of age before they go on pension. They must serve until 65 or have retired owing to disablement. That shows that most of those will now be up to the age of 70, and they cannot in the ordinary course of events be long a burden on the State. The sum required will be a gradually diminishing one. I do not think it is necessary to argue those things at any great length. It seems so eminently just and fair and the number of people concerned is so small, and the amount of money required is so very small, that I have no doubt but that the House as a whole and the Minister for Finance will agree to give the measure a Second Reading and to pass it in all its stages.

I second the motion. There are two points I wish to make. First, the majority of the persons affected have gone to live in the City of Derry from Donegal. Now, it is quite obvious that old people should desire to go to live with their relatives, and that explains the reason why they have gone out of the 26 and into the 6 counties. Then there is the further point which is important to bear in mind, that what may be called identical legislation, involving similar pensions as applied in the Northern area, does not contain any limitation of this kind. They may live in the Twenty-Six County area and continue to draw those increases from the Northern Government. I think, on the principle of reciprocity in these matters, that that is a point in favour of the measure.

I will not deny that I am prejudiced in the consideration of this Bill by the fact that it is purely an expenditure Bill. It does nothing except authorise further expenditure of public money for which no service is given or is to be given. It does not propose to alter any system of administration or make any changes in the law in the ordinary way. It simply amounts to an increase of public expenditure, and I do not know that I am satisfied that that would be a good Parliamentary principle. At the present time I would feel very disinclined to procure the necessary Message or to take the steps necessary to secure the passage of a Bill which is purely an expenditure Bill introduced by a private member of the House. The amount of money is very small in this particular Bill, but before I would be inclined to enable the other stages to be taken I would like to consider it at further length, because I think that it probably ought to be a principle of the House that Bills for a mere expenditure of money should not be passed unless they come from the quarter in the House that is for the time being responsible for administration and expenditure. I can imagine there might be a stage when, if the House were to adopt the practice of giving the same consideration to Money Bills introduced by private members as Money Bills introduced by the people who were for the time being charged with Executive responsibility, you might have a lot of Money Bills introduced which it would be undesirable to have coming forward. While I do not profess to have thought out the matter very fully I think there is a question of some importance involved of which we ought to think, because we are now only establishing our precedents. I would not rush into this particular point. The matter that the Bill deals with was dealt with in the Superannuation Act of 1923, before I was concerned with it. I do not know all the circumstances that were taken into account at that particular time, but I think at the time we gave this particular concession to the teachers the Government in the Six-county area had not given any concession to them. I think it was subsequent to our action that the concession was given. The Deputy must remember that the teachers are the only class of prechange of Government pensioners to whom an increase has been given. When he talks of imposing a new disability he is hardly absolutely correct. What happened was that the concession was not given to everybody.

The only thing that is really argued in favour of this Bill is that there is not much money in it. The increases are there for these people. They can come and get them if they want them. Anyone resident outside the Saorstát who likes to come in can get his pension. There is no great grievance on anybody's part. As the Deputy indicated, There are teachers to whom this Bill would apply resident outside the Saorstát in addition to those resident in the Six Counties. The Act, if it were passed, would apply to them as well as to the Six County people. I do not know that there has been any argument put up that those who went deliberately outside and of whom it cannot be said that they went to friends, should get the increase. I am prepared to look into the matter and to consider whether there is not a good case for extending this concession to those who have gone to the Six Counties and who have not deliberately gone a distance away from the district in which they were engaged and in which their associations were. I am also prepared to consider whether we might not take action to extend the concession to those particular people. The numbers, both of those resident in the Six Counties and outside Ireland, are small. The real point is that we gave them an increase of pensions which we did not give to any other pensioners who were pensioners at the time we took over the change of Government. There is no great grievance even on the part of those who are resident in the Six Counties. They taught in districts now included in the Saorstát. Some of them had removed before its establishment. At any rate they have their friends and associates in the areas in which they taught, and I cannot see that they have any great grievance in the matter. If there were any big sum of money involved. I would not hold out any hope of giving consideration to this proposal. Seeing that the amount of money involved is so small, it is not worth taking up any very strong attitude. But I may say that I am not inclined to facilitate the passage of a Bill which is purely a Money Bill and which a private member introduces without any definite or personal representation in advance. I certainly do not remember having the case put up to me. I do think that, while the amount of money is trifling, there is a principle involved, and I would divide the House upon it.

There is unquestionably a great deal to be said in favour of the contention of the Minister for Finance, that a Bill which is purely, as he describes the present measure, an expenditure Bill, should, in consonance with the spirit of the Constitution, as governing the dealing with public moneys, be the type of measure that is reserved for introduction by an Executive Minister. But that is a technical difficulty—a technical difficulty notwithstanding the fact that the Minister is absolutely and indisputably correct in saying that there is a principle involved in it. He said: "We are now making our precedents." We are, and let us be careful that all the precedents that we make are animated by a spirit of justice and of equity—a spirit to which no one shall hereafter take exception as being un-Irish. Many of the precedents which regulate this assembly are borrowed from the so-called "Mother of Parliaments." I have a distinct recollection of a precedent which might come to our assistance at the present moment. The O'Conor Don, of that period, introduced a University measure into Westminster, and, while it was not acceptable to the Government of the day, it was agreed that if he withdrew it the Ministry would adopt it in principle and in many of its leading details. It seems to me that in view of the fact that the necessity for this Bill arises purely out of technicality, we might very well come, in the sympathetic spirit that animated some portions of the Minister's speech, to the rescue of those few people. £11, according to Deputy O'Connell, is the average amount of increase that would come to them if there had not been this stipulation in the sub-section of Section 6 of our own Act. That is a small sum to the Minister for Finance. But to the recipient of a pension of £48, eleven pounds is too large a proportion to be despicable or negligible.

Now, the history of this transaction is a history of technicalities. The war known as the Great War, though to us, of course, it is a little war, was declared in August 1914. By a set of accidents this pension scheme, under which those people derive advantage, only came into operation in October. At a later stage that technical difficulty was removed. The President, who was then Minister for Finance, agreed to regard this as pre-war, notwithstanding. Now Deputy O'Connell, who was acting on behalf of those teachers, pressed their case, and I have a distinct recollection of the Friday. I think it was, upon which the House heard the recital of their grievances and was greatly moved. Deputy O'Connell states that his interpretation of the phrase "resident within the Free State," was let pass without criticism, inasmuch as it seemed to him the Saorstát was Ireland inclusive of the six counties. Of course, legally what was intended was the area of jurisdiction of the Free State. In consequence of that, those people who went to live with their own friends on the very fringe of the Saorstát, are by that slight removal outside our area of jurisdiction and are, therefore, to the bad financially to the amount of about £11.

It does not seem at all, as I have already suggested, in consonance with our traditions to say 25 poor people are to be muleted of a few pounds per year merely because they found it necessary, as so many old people did and do find it necessary, to live with relatives. It is not merely a matter of supplementing an insufficient income, but it is in obedience to a very natural tendency of our own people. I think, therefore, that if we do put up this technical obstacle to Deputy O'Connell's Bill, that it is an expenditure measure pure and simple, it is quite easy to meet that by an undertaking on the part of the Executive Council, through the Minister for Finance, to make this a Government measure. The amount out of purely Government funds of additional expenditure is only £45. I would not say only £45 if there were any great principle involved. We have already dealt with the question of principles. The Bill, as introduced by Deputy O'Connell, might be treated as the advertising of the fact, and then the unhappy fact can be removed from the region of actualities by the Minister dealing with it.

It seems to me the Minister has expressed, if not explicity, at least by implication, a strong desire to do that, and I fancy if he were not the watchdog of public finance he would be as keen on the remedying of this defect as Deputy O'Connell or any of us. I, therefore, put it to him, with all respect, as a suggestion, that the spirit of Deputy O'Connell's Bill and the spirit of his speech in advocacy of it are not at all at variance with anything for which the Minister stands. Consequently, I think, if I may use the term, it would be a wise thing if the Government adopted the measure.

I thought I indicated —perhaps I did not do so clearly enough— that I am clear in my mind as to the people who live in the Six Counties. I would be prepared to have a measure introduced that would certainly give to them some consideration. I have not really thought over the cases of the others. I do not care to suggest to Deputy O'Connell that he should let the Bill drop.

Will the Minister agree to accept the Second Reading as a formal matter? Will he agree not to oppose it? Then the matter would be entirely in his own hands. Nothing more would be done until he moves. Would the Minister accept merely the principle? In speech the Minister has already done that.

That goes a little further than I have so far made up my mind to go. The Bill does apply to all the teachers. I would be accepting the principle somewhat further.

Up to this moment, of course, it would not be your Bill.

Of course it is quite reasonable, subject to amendment, and I myself would support the contention that it should only apply to those resident in Ireland.

If that is the principle of the Bill I would say I accept the principle; but I think the Bill will have to be altered to another shape from that in which it has been presented.

If it passes the Second Reading in this form nothing more would be heard of it until the Minister would move. Then the Minister may introduce his own Bill and this goes out of sight.

There are many principles involved in this matter. Obviously as a money measure the Bill cannot go very far through the Dáil without the Minister for Finance taking it under his wing, so to speak. Deputy O'Connell, in advocating this measure and in bringing forward the case of the comparatively few people concerned, was, as he generally is, eminently reasonable, and he put the case in an unanswerable way. I do not think any Deputy would disclaim the idea that the people referred to are entitled to all the provisions he asks for. On the other hand, he and other speakers have stressed the insignificance of the amount of money involved as an argument in favour of the Bill. I rather object to that as a principle. If the case is right, just, and proper, the amount of money is a secondary consideration, I take it, with Deputies anxious to do justice where justice is due. But to touch on the insignificance of the amount of money involved as a reason for the adoption of the measure is not, I think, dealing with the matter in a very broad spirit.

The Minister and others have said that, as applied to teachers residing in the Six Counties, they have no objection, but if teachers reside anywhere else there is an objection. I take exception to that right away. This pension, as has been explained, is based on contributions paid by teachers into a fund for provision in their old age. If the Dáil is going to lay down that no pension is payable to anybody unless they obey the dictates of the Dáil as to where they are going to live, I say that is a restriction on the liberty of the individual. I do not think the Dáil ought to lay down any such principle. If a person has served the State for a number of years, and has contributed to a fund which will provide a pension for him in his old age, he is entitled to enjoy that pension without any restriction as to where he should live. We must all be sympathetic with the case put forward by Deputy O'Connell. I think the Minister is perfectly right in resisting the adoption of a principle whereby individual Deputies could bring in a money Bill. But this case is so perfectly clear, apparently, as to the justice of it, that I think the object of the Bill has been, and will be, served by the introduction of the measure and the promise the Minister has made that the matter will have his due consideration with a view to remedying the grievance that obviously exists.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I would like to say that I do not wish to create any new precedents that would be in any way embarrassing to us at the beginning of our career as a Parliamentary Assembly. I might explain that, as a matter of fact, it was only after I had handed in the Bill that I discovered that it would, in fact, put any charge on the Exchequer, because until I discovered that this grant-in-aid was composed of 15 per cent. contribution of expenditure I did assume that any increase which would accrue as a result of this measure would come directly and entirely out of the Teachers' Pension Fund. As I say, at the time I actually handed in the Bill I did not think it would be necessary to increase even by a slight amount the vote from the Exchequer.

As I am on that, I might mention that as a matter of fact in the case of the Teachers' Pension Fund any increase of pensions under the Act of 1920 should not be borne and was never intended to be borne by this Fund. The Teachers' Pension Fund was raided, not by our present Ministry, but by the British Treasury, and the present Government has followed in their footsteps. If the Minister will look into it, he will see that these grants were to be made out of the common Exchequer, but when they came to administer it here they raided the Teachers' Pension Fund, and it is out of that Fund they are paying the increased pension. What I want to have security on is that plainly and squarely these teachers will get their increase. If the Minister says he will give it to them I do not intend to push this matter further. I do not want to create any precedent by having a Bill passed through its Second Reading here which deals with expenditure of money. I would like to remove one impression from the Minister's mind, that this case was not put up to him before now. It was put up to him twelve months ago, and I was for a long time in communication with the then Attorney-General, now Chief Justice Kennedy. I understood from him, and from the correspondence I had from him, that he was discussing the matter with the Minister for Finance, and that although they had looked into the matter he was not clear at that time whether in fact that sub-section did definitely prevent the Minister for Finance from paying out. But as nothing came of it I assume that there could be only one possible reason for the failure to pay and that was the presence in the Pensions Act of this sub-section.

There are just one or two other points mentioned on which I would like to say a word. That is, that these people did not deliberately go out of the Saorstát as far as I know. Every one of them was living in the Six County area at the time this Act was passed. They were all pensioned certainly before August, 1920. It was when they went on pension that they went out of the Saorstát. They did not deliberately go out of it. They were in Ireland, and nine of them were teaching in Donegal. I am sure the Donegal representatives will be interested to know that these people when they got the pension retired to the neighbouring city or town——

Does Deputy O'Connell agree with the contention that they had no right to go outside the Saorstát at all?

Mr. O'CONNELL

I am arguing the contrary. There is this other point as a distinction between those in Ireland and those outside it. I think it will be invidious for the sake of these few who might be involved, five, six, or at most a dozen, to introduce this principle, which is not in any of our Pensions Acts so far. If it is going to be a general principle let it be a general principle so far as all pensions are concerned. It does not apply to any other section of pensioners. Then you will have to face the position that it will be only four, or five, or twelve old pensioners who will be affected if that distinction is made as between Ireland and those who happen to live in England or Scotland. If the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking in any way that he thinks is right or in any way he wishes to have these pensions paid to those old people and do justice to them, then I do not wish to proceed further.

I will give that undertaking. In the case of the few who live outside the country I must say that there are certain Acts, certain British Acts, which do restrict pensions to people resident in the British Isles, or, as it used to be called, the United Kingdom. However, I do not want to argue the matter further.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I would like to urge on the Minister the desirability of doing it without undue delay, because these are very old people.

I will. I will see that the Bill will be soon drafted.

The Minister might take into consideration the fact that the pensioners might be compelled for health reasons to go to reside outside the area of the Saorstát. The Treaty allows people to go outside, and people who have taken advantage of Clause 10 of the Treaty have actually gone outside the Saorstát. For that reason I suggest that no restrictions ought to be laid on people in the matter of living outside the Saorstát.

Mr. O'CONNELL

With that undertaking I beg to withdraw the Bill, with the leave of the Dáil.

Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Barr
Roinn