Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 5

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS ACT—(MONEY RESOLUTION).

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach socrú do dhéanamh chun pinsin áirithe do mhéadú agus a údarú go ndéanfar, amach as airgead a sholáthróidh an tOireachtas, méaduithe d'ioc ón am a rithfar aon Acht sa tSiosón so chun leathnú do dhéanamh ar an gcáilíocht chomhnaithe is gá chun méadú pinsin d'fháil féalt 6 den Acht Aoisliúntas agus Pinsean, 1923.

That it is expedient to make provision for the increase of certain pensions and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, of increases as from the passing of any Act of the present Session to extend the residence qualification for the receipt of an increase of pension under Section 6 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923.

I would propose, with the leave of the House, to amend this motion very slightly in a direction favourable to Deputy O'Connell. I would make it read, "Payment of increases as from 1st April, 1925." There is one reason why we do not wish this increase to be retrospective to any considerable extent, and that is that considerable complications might arise in the case of people who had died, and the personal representatives of whom would have a title to these arrears of pensions, and would have to be sought out. There is the further point that it is unusual to make these increases retrospective unless they are in fulfilment of a pledge given some considerable time back. There is no pledge in this case except a pledge that was given one or two months ago. If we were to make the date 1st April, 1925, we give these people increases from about the date they would have got them if we had adopted Deputy O'Connell's Bill when it came in and allowed the necessary money resolution to pass. The amount of money involved in this particular Bill is not very large, and, of course, it is not a charge that will continue for any great length of time. I would make the resolution read: "That it is expedient to make provision for the increase of certain pensions, and to authorise the payment of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of increases as from the 1st day of April, 1925, under any Act of the present Session to extend the residence qualifications for the receipt of an increase of pension under Section 6 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923."

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I think the first thing the House will notice about this financial motion is that the wording is rather unusual. It would look as if this particular phrasing were introduced in order to bowl out my amendment, as will happen undoubtedly if the Minister's resolution is passed, for it will not then be in order. My reason for putting down this amendment is that a pledge was given by the late General Collins to these pensioners early in 1922. It took us more than a year, something like 15 months, to get that pledge implemented, and that was done under Section 6 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923. In order to carry out the pledge, as the Minister has stated, a special sub-section was put in, which stated that any increases of pension to which a pensioner becomes entitled by virtue of this section shall take effect and be payable as from the 1st April, 1922.

This was passed in August, 1923. The sub-section was put in to give effect to a pledge of the late General Collins, and there was also put in this section which we are now repealing by this particular Act. At that time it was not thought that this section would bar out any pensioner in Ireland. This point was raised before. I raised it when the other Bill introduced by me, was under discussion. I explained this point fully. It was the opinion of the late Attorney-General that the Interpretation Act did not bar out those who lived in the Six-County area. I have that expression of opinion in writing, that the Minister for Finance without this Bill, could pay these teachers. Now, we come along to remove this barrier to enable the Minister for Finance to pay. I hold, and have always held, that you were only carrying out the pledge of the late General Collins who, when he gave his pledge, did not intend that these increases should be confined to the Twenty-Six Counties. I am quite certain of that. It was not in his mind that it should be confined to the Twenty-Six counties. Now, we come along and the Minister for Finance says that the only ground which would justify him in saying that the retrospective payment holds in this case, is that this is the fulfilment of a pledge. It is sixteen or eighteen months ago since the matter was taken up with the Attorney-General, and it has taken that length to get this sub-section knocked out of Section 6 of this Act. There is no reason why these few people should suffer because this did creep in for some reason or another at that time. I do not believe that there would be any such difficulty as that about which the Minister speaks. The Minister ruled that there were some who would be affected by sub-section (3) of Section 6 if the payment were made retrospective. But those who are living, I maintain, are entitled to the strict fulfilment of the pledge given by Michael Collins, and should get paid from April, 1922. I am sure the last thing General Collins would have had in his mind would be to confine this little increase to those who live in the Twenty-Six counties. I would suggest to the Minister, who has met me very fairly in this matter, to give way on this point and to make it retrospective.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think the Message from the Governor-General covers it. It would, I think, require some slight alteration.

Resolution amended to read—"Increases from the 1st April, 1922, under any Act"—put and agreed to.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I am very grateful to the Minister for the way he has met us in this matter.