Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Mar 1949

Vol. 114 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £30,900 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1949, for Wound and Disability Pensions, Further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932, No. 15 of 1937, No. 2 of 1941, No. 14 of 1943 and No. 3 of 1946); Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, No. 43 of 1934, No. 33 of 1938, No. 5 of 1944 and Nos. 11 and 34 of 1945); Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936 and No. 9 of 1948); Payments in respect of Compensation for Members of the Local Defence Force (No. 19 of 1946); and for sundry contributions and Expenses in respect thereof, etc.; and for an ExtraStatutory Grant.

The circumstances that made it necessary to bring in this Supplementary Estimate as shown in the White Paper are as follows:—Under sub-head C, £4,000 is needed to cover the arrears of wound and disability pensions which come in the course of payment during the year. When the original Estimate was drafted in the winter of 1947 it was estimated that there was an average of four months to be met. In fact, that average has been greatly exceeded and in some cases there were arrears of pensions falling for payment up to as many as three years. Under sub-head G, there is a sum of £10,300 falling for payment which was not reckoned on this year, the reason being that, in connection with the abatement clauses of the Military Service Pensions Act, the abatement in the case of Civic Guards was heretofore reckoned on their pay and allowances of various kinds. This year it was found that that was incorrect and that we were only entitled to make the abatement on the pay of the Guards without taking into account the various allowances. Therefore, under this sub-head we have to make a refund in the abatement, going back as far as 20 years. The amount of money involved in that refund to members of the Garda Síochána is £10,300. In addition to that, there is £5,000 in respect of the deficit on current abatement. It was reckoned that under the appropriate section there would be a reduction of £28,000 and in the working year it transpired that that Estimate was not fulfilled. The abatement came to only £23,000. The balance, £2,700, is simply a normal variation in the expenditure under this sub-head. The small figure, £131, under sub-head K is required to implement the abatement clause in connection with the Connaught Rangers Act, which was introduced in the course of last year.

Under sub-head M, Special Allowances, when framing the Estimate for the financial year coming to an end, it was calculated that the number of people falling for special allowances would be at the rate of 20 a month and that the average allocation made to each of the 20 would be £62. In the working of the scheme throughout the year, we found that we were dealing with and putting through 40 a month and that the average allowance to each person was £65. That accounts for the extra sum asked for under that particular heading. That makes a total of £43,000 odd required under this Supplementary Estimate and there is a drawback under other sub-heads amounting to £12,000, leaving a balance of the amount I mentioned at the outset.

Mr. A. Byrne

Might I ask the Minister a question? Did he give any consideration to his promise of last year regarding the men who went out on an earlier Act—I think it was the 1946 Act —who were induced to go out, I think, on the 2nd September and where it occurred that immediately afterwards there was an increase in the pension rates to the men who remained on? When the matter was raised by Deputy Cowan and myself, and I think Deputy Cosgrave, the Minister promised that he would go into the matter and asked us not to press him until he had time to consider all the facts. There are three or four hundred men who gave 21-23 years' service and who went out on a smaller pension than those who remained on and went out three months later. I forget the dates, as I was not prepared for this just now. I remember the Minister himself being asked by Deputy Cowan and myself, and I think Deputy Cosgrave, to give these men consideration, and the Minister promised that he would consider whether he could introduce amending legislation to deal with the matter and include them.

The Deputy cannot advocate legislation on this Estimate. There is no money for that in this Vote. The Deputy can raise the point on the main vote, but not on this one.

The Deputy can raise it on the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme.

A Supplementary Estimate of this kind has become a more or less normal procedure in this House, due mainly to the reasons which the Minister himself has explained. Looking through the Estimate, there is nothing that I can say very well on any of these points. I am glad, naturally, to see that the special allowances have been increased to the extent that they have been increased, and the explanation which the Minister has given in respect of sub-head G accounts largely for the sum required under that sub-head.

The Minister will remember that, on the Estimate proper, which was discussed during the present financial year, I made reference to two matters to which I asked him to give sympathetic consideration. I think the Minister himself promised to inquire actively and vigorously into the particular point which I made. Having fully explained them on the Estimate proper, there is no necessity for me to go over them again. One referred to the question of the forfeiture of pensions. The Minister is aware of the circumstances in which these military service pensions can be forfeited. The idea originally was probably quite all right but a lot of things that appear quite all right very often work out all wrong when they come to work out in practice. While I was acting as Minister for Defence I came across at least two or three cases in which I felt an injustice was done to the unfortunate people who came under those particular cases which I have in mind.

Will the Deputy say whether they would require new legislation?

It would require Ministerial examination. That is all I am asking and that is all I did ask for.

The other point which I referred to was that in which the means test was operating very hardly against certain of the recipients of that allowance. Again I outlined one particular case in which the hardship was, to my mind, very extreme. A sister was supporting her brother and because the brother was securing that means of livelihood from the sister his means were assessed at some extraordinary figure which reduced the special allowance to a niggardly sum of something like 7/- a week. As I said on that occasion, neither the Government nor any Deputy in this House ever visualised that the ideas which we had in mind when we brought in that legislation would ever operate in that way. The Minister promised at that time to look into these two cases. Of course, I have not raised the matter since and from that point of view the Minister could not have given me any information, but I am availing of the opportunity which this Supplementary Estimate provides to ask the Minister if he has been good enough to take any action in the matter and, if so, what was the result of the action.

The Chair's difficulty is whether that opportunity does arise.

This Supplementary Estimate deals with the question of a large sum of money that covers the adjustment of the abatement of pensions. In other words, it covers a good deal of money that has to be refunded to members of the Garda Síochána for the pay which the Minister has discovered through his scrutiny was not correct. I should like to ask the Minister if he has considered the plea which I made and which, I think, Deputy Traynor made on the main Estimate—particularly in view of the statement which the Minister has made now that instead of saving, as he had thought, £28,000, they had, in fact, recouped only £23,000. On the question of the abatement of pensions is he now in a position to state whether the Government would consider the question of abolishing the pensions completely? I should like to take this opportunity, and I am entitled to do so in view of the fact that the Supplementary Estimate deals with moneys that arise under the abatement of pensions to——

The Deputy is entitled to deal with the precise matters under the sub-head and not to advocate new legislation.

The matter under the sub-head deals with a refund of money that goes back over 20 years and I do not think it is necessary to advocate new legislation to deal with this matter. Only a Ministerial Order is needed to effect this. On that basis, I urge it on the Minister, in view of the fact that the main Estimate will be coming shortly before the House, to make some statement, if he can, on the abatement in general.

Provided it does not require new legislation.

It will not.

I am very pleased to see an increase of £21,000 in the amount for special allowances. I think that shows that quite a considerable number of persons entitled to those special allowances are receiving them now. I think Deputies on all sides of the House will be glad to know that the machinery of this Act is being administered in such a way that an additional sum of £21,000 is necessary to provide these supplementary allowances this year.

I am also glad to know that the matter of the abatement of pensions in regard to allowances as distinct from the salaries of Gardaí has been adjusted. That was a bone of contention for quite a considerable period. It was a claim that members of the Gardaí made over a long period and I am glad to know that that is being satisfactorily settled and that only the salary will be liable to abatement while this business of abatement lasts.

While there have been declarations made by the Minister from time to time in answer to questions here and in answer to deputations that he was considering as sympathetically as he could the claims of a number of people for military service pensions who are not now in receipt of those pensions, I can see at once that legislation will be necessary for that purpose. I am not availing of this opportunity to——

The Deputy seems to be.

No, I am availing of the opportunity to do no more than to ask the Minister, when he is ready, to repeat his promise that the matter is still under his consideration.

If the Minister were allowed and in order.

I think he will be in order.

I should like to ask the Minister a question. When will he exercise the prerogative which Deputy Collins informs us he has by Ministerial Order to allow a further number of persons to apply for medals?

On a point of order, I did not say that.

The Minister promised the House on a previous occasion that he was proposing to have this done.

That is new legislation too.

There is no money provided for medals.

I am informed by Deputy Collins that it can be done by Ministerial Order or otherwise.

There is no money for medals.

Will the Minister give us some information on that matter because it is a problem that we are asked about every day of the week? I think the Minister is aware of that, too. He might also give us the information when, by Ministerial Order, he proposes to allow applications for service pensions.

There is no money here for that purpose.

He does not want money to make Ministerial Orders.

The question does not arise at all. I am not hearing the Deputy further on that.

I am not pursuing the matter further.

I should like to know from the Minister, as regards special allowances, if anything can be done about the age and the means test, so that people may qualify. I think the Minister will agree that people of 68 or 69 years are hardly capable of selfsupport. We have had a few cases like that in Cork and when questions were put the reply invariably was that these people had been found capable of supporting themselves. I am sure the Minister will agree that nobody will employ a man of 68 or 69 years. Such a person is incapable of getting employment sufficient to support him.

As regards the means test, I do not know if the Minister can interfere there. Perhaps he can through the medium of the Ministerial Order that Deputy Collins spoke of. The means test in connection with that special allowance is extra severe, especially for people with children. If there is a boy or girl working up to 18 years of age all the earnings are taken into account as income. When the child is over 18 it is only the profit from the earnings after the cost of support is deducted that is taken into consideration. With the old age pensions and other means tests the position is entirely different. I do not know whether the Minister can do anything about it. I merely draw his attention to the hardships involved. A few cases were brought to my notice recently. People could not draw a special allowance on account of the earnings of their children; they could not do anything until the children reached 18 years.

I am thankful to Deputies for the way they discussed this particular Supplementary Estimate. There is evidence all round that any suggestions made were certainly made with the idea of helping on the work and assisting the unfortunate people who have to depend on Votes such as this for assistance.

With regard to the special allowances and the regulations governing them, there are two things very definitely and explicitly laid down in the Act, matters over which no Minister has any control short of amending the legislation. A person must be definitely and permanently incapable of earning a livelihood because of bodily infirmity. That is a matter for a medical board and not a matter for any Minister. No Minister can interfere with the findings of such a board. Most medical people, if not all, are weighted on the side of the patient. Most medical men are oversympathetic as between a patient and the State. It is on the findings of the medical board, and solely on those findings, that incapacity is decided on. It is merely a political accident——

Perhaps the Minister will excuse me for intervening? I think they take the age of 70 as being the qualifying age for the special allowance. Would the medical board be induced to accept 65 years?

The medical board is tied down to finding the person incapable, by reason of health or his physical condition, of earning a livelihood and no Minister can interfere with the finding of the board. If the medical board sent to a Minister a report that an allIreland footballer was unfit to earn his livelihood because of physical incapacity, that is the end of it, as far as the Minister goes. The man gets his allowance even though he could break the Minister's neck in a tussle. The Act lays it down that it is a matter for the board, and the Minister is powerless to interfere. All my information, and all the information available to my predecessor, is that those medical people approach that work in a sympathetic frame of mind.

I admit cases come along that any individual Minister would rather he got another report on, but we have to put up with the report we get. All the Minister can do, if he thinks it is a fairly hard case, is to get it reviewed 12 months later. That is laid down in the Act, that the case can be reopened that day 12 months, but it cannot be reopened within the period of 12 months. Both my predecessor and myself, since this Act started to operate, reopened a great number of cases at the end of the 12 months' period.

With regard to the means test, in order to save the time of the Dáil I read through the introductory statement rather rapidly and I gave only the bigger items. The reason that the average of £62 in the original Estimate was raised to £65 was that any modifications that could be made in a means test were made in the course of the year arising out of things raised here last year. There have been certain modifications in the means test, with the result that the average allowance has been raised by £3 per head.

Does that mean that the inspector is taking a more liberal view?

I have not the details at my fingers' ends, but there were a number of the things taken into account when ascertaining means that were challenged by the Department of Defence. We did not win all along the front, but certain of these things were conceded.

Mr. Brennan

Will those who were in receipt of allowances before the modification of the means test took place be recouped any moneys that were kept from them by reason of the fact that the means test was, in the first instance, so severe.

No. Any alteration in the means test would apply only as from the date the alteration was agreed to.

Mr. Brennan

Would the Minister consider that fair? The amount involved would not be very large and surely it would be only dealing out justice for the recipients of these allowances that they should all be treated on the same basis? There are certain people in receipt of that allowance or a certain portion of it, due to a severe means test. Then another individual comes along later and because this test was modified he receives a higher allowance.

Is not the Deputy's sympathy a bit belated?

Mr. Brennan

Will the Minister reconsider the position of the individuals who originally had the allowance and make good the moneys they were deprived of?

I do not think there is any question of inspectors in connection with the schemes. Everybody is endeavouring to do the maximum amount of justice and the mere fact that certain things that went to the make up of means were removed from a certain date for everybody was a big concession; and the chances are that you would not get such a concession if you were to make it retrospective. In any case it did not take anything from anybody but it gave a certain small amount——

Mr. Brennan

I agree, but nevertheless the fact remains.

Deputy Traynor raised the question of forfeiture. I agree with him absolutely that there is an unduly harsh continuing penalty on certain unfortunate individuals because of the law which governs forfeiture at the moment. That particular question of giving to the appropriate Minister the right after a certain lapse of time to review forfeiture is actually under Governmental consideration at the moment. I do not know what the outcome will be, but it is under consideration.

Deputy Byrne put a question as to the different scales of pensions applicable to people who left the Army on certain dates. I think that owing to the confusion created by the multiplicity of small Acts dealing with the Army the Deputy was under a misunderstanding. That does not come within this group of Army pensions at all. A promise was, however, made to the House to have the matter considered. That promise was kept and the matter has got very, very careful consideration. Whatever the outcome may be, it is being considered. But none of us has our own way absolutely in this world. Perhaps it would be a better place if we had.

Somebody asked about the extension of the date for medals. That will be dealt with in the course of this year —possibly before the end of this session. Abatement is something that requires more than a Ministerial Order. It has been under consideration and is still under consideration but I would be misleading Deputy Collins if I struck any note of optimism.

On a point of clarification, I think I know what Deputy Brennan has in mind. From the point of view of the means test will there be a periodic review of pensions?

Of the allowances annually?

For instance, somebody may have been granted £65 on an inspection by the means test inspector. Will the inspector come back at a later date to review that? Supposing we take a figure of £20 as against the figure to which the Minister says it has been raised, will the man to whom that applies have an opportunity of having it reviewed?

Certainly, but the unfortunate thing is that that review applies both ways. Some may come down on the review.

That is a possibility, but I think that is what the Deputy had in mind.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn