Might I ask the Minister if he would consider including in this Bill some provision for those members of the Casement Brigade who are somewhat similarly circumstanced? I would ask if he could consider that before the Final Stage of the Bill.
Committee on Finance. - Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Bill, 1948—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1, 2, 3, and Title agreed to.
Agreed to take the Report stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I could not consider including it in this Bill, but I will ensure that consideration is given to the representations made.
Could we get some kind of an assurance from the Minister that at the earliest possible moment he will get rid of this odious abatement system for pensions?
Would the Deputy please wait for the Fifth Stage? There is really no debate on the Report Stage of a Bill which has not been amended.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendmet.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to talk about this whole question of abatement and would like to urge the abolition of this invidious system. It affects very few people, as it applies only to certain categories. I understand the net loss to the State in revenue would not be £28,000 and that it would be considerably less in view of the fact that much of the loss would be offset by subsequent income-tax payments. I would like to impress on the Minister that it is the lower paid officials who are in receipt of pensions and are really most hit by this abatement. I would like the Minister to indicate what his attitude is going to be on this matter. As he is well aware, it does not affect people working for semi-State organisations such as the Electricity Supply Board. It only affects people actually in State employment or in the employment of local bodies. If there is no justification for describing it as a means test, it is at least time that we abated it out of these provisions.
I would like to support Deputy Collins. I understand that the amount of money saved by the State is almost negligible. This is to some extent pin-pricking legislation. If a person qualifies by service for a pension, the amount of the pension which he has earned should be paid to him; and to deduct a portion of it from the individual simply because he happens to be in receipt of money from public or local authority funds is a hardship that should not be imposed on him. I would ask the Minister to consider that aspect and to do anything he possibly can.
The general question raised is outside the scope of this particular Bill. It really relates to the general pensions legislation. I think the figures mentioned are fairly accurate, that £28,000 would be the cost of letting go entirely on the abatement, if the Army were not included. If the members of the Defence Forces were to be included, that would add approximately another £10,000 on to the bill. How much would be recouped by way of income-tax I am not in a position to estimate but I could not go so far as to agree with Deputy Cowan that the figure is a negligible one. I think most of us would feel very, very happy if we had anything like the figure mentioned, £28,000 or £38,000. That is a considerable sum. As Deputies will understand, this is not a matter upon which the Minister for Defence can adjudicate alone or decide. It would be unreasonable and unfair, therefore, for him to express his views as an individual. This is a matter for Government consideration as a whole. All the representations made will be considered. Very general representations of the same nature came from both sides of the House in 1945 when the Bill was introduced in connection with the alteration in abatements. The maximum alterations that could be made in the light of conditions existing in 1945 were contained in the Bill of 1945 and are being repeated in this particular Bill. All we are doing at the moment is to rectify an omission from the Act of 1945. The Connaught Rangers were overlooked on that occasion and we are at the moment merely rectifying that omission. We are doing nothing else. Any representations that have been made on anything else, which call for consideration, will be considered in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution. The Seanad will be notified accordingly.