Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1960

Vol. 179 No. 3

Army Pensions Bill, 1960—Second Stage.

Tairgim go léifí an Bille athuair anois. Is é is mó atá sa Bhille, méaduithe a dheonadh ar phinsin chréachta, ar phinsin mhíthreora agus ar phinsin phósta agus ar liúntais áirithe do chleithiúnaithe ar dhaoine marbha, is iníoctha faoi na hAchtanna Arm-Phinsean, 1923 go 1959. Tá éifeacht ag na méaduithe ón lú Lúnasa, 1959, i leith, agus tá siad á n-íoc ón lá sin amach ar údaráis Meastacháin Bhreise le haghaidh pinsean a ritheadh sa Teach seo ar an 22ú Iúil, 1959.

Tríd is tríd, tá na méaduithe a bhfuil trácht orthu in Ailt 2 go 25 go huile, de réir na méaduithe le haghaidh pinsinéirí Stáit, i gcoitinne, a údaraíodh ag an Aire Airgeadais ina Ráiteas ar an gCáinaisnéis in Aibreán, 1959. Tá pinsinéirí oifigeach a bhfuil a bpinsin gaolmhar dá bpá Airm ar dháta a n-urscaoilte, ag fáil méadú de 6%, má urscaoileadh iad roimh an lú Meán Fómhair, 1949, agus méadú de 4%, má urscaoileadh iad ar nó tar éis an dáta sin agus roimh an lú Aibreán, 1950. (Ós rud é go ngabhann na dátaí sin le hathruithe ar phá an Airm, meastar go bhfuil siad níos oiriúnaí mar dhátaí cáilitheacha ná an lú Samhain, 1948, agus an lú Samhain, 1952—is é sin, na dátaí a luadh sa Ráiteas Cáinaisnéise do phinsinéirí eile Stáit). Tá na méaduithe sin de 6% agus 4% faoi réir na teorann, áfach, nach mbeidh de thoradh orthu, pinsean a mhéadú thar an tsuim a bheadh iníoctha, dá n-urscaoiltí an pinsinéir ar an 2ú Samhain, 1952, sa chéim chéanna, leis an tseirbhís chéanna agus faoin ngrád céanna míchumais. Tá pinsinéirí eile faoi na hAchtanna, nach bhfuil a bpinsin gaolmhar do phá an Airm, ag fáil méadú de 6%. I gcás baintreach le Síniúir an Fhorógra 1916, áfach, nach bhfuair méadú ar a liúntas bliantúil nuair a méadaíodh pinsin Stáit i 1956, measadh gur chóir an liúntas a bheadh iníoctha léi faoi Chuid II den Acht Arm-Phinscan, 1937, a mhéadú go dtí an tsuim a bheadh ann, dá gcuirtí méadú an dá bhliain 1956 agus 1959 leis, is é sin, 6% i ngach cás ar leith. Tá soláthar déanta dá réir sin le hAlt 17 den Bhille. Meastar go gcosnóidh na méaduithe a sholáthraítear sa Bhille £11,500 in aghaidh na bliana.

Tá Alt 26 ceaptha chun amhras a chur as an tslí i dtaobh lán-chomh. líonadh na hintinne a bhí mar bhun le hAlt 2 den Acht Arm-Phinsean, 1959—is é sin, an coinníoll maidir le cleithiúnas a bhaint as an Dara agus an Tríú Sceidil leis an Acht 1923 i leith baintreacha agus leanaí daoine marbha lenar bhain na Sceidil. Tharla nár luadh san fhoráil leasaitheach de 1959 Alt amháin acu sin (Alt 2 den Acht Arm-Phinsean, 1946) a thug cumhacht ina leith seo agus a ghabh leis na Sceidil ach tá sin á dhéanamh anois le héifeacht ón dáta ar a ritheadh an tAcht 1959.

Le hAlt 27 tugtar cumhacht chun feidhm a bheith ag an am-theorainn fhadaithe faoi Alt 9 den Acht de 1959 maidir le hiarratas ar liúntas faoi Chuid II den Acht de 1953 ó ghaol do dhuine marbh ag a raibh seirbhís roimh an sos agus a thagann i dteideal an liúntais tar éis bás an ghaoil lenar íocadh i dtosach báire é. Bhí ar intinn feidhm a bheith ag lamháltas an Achta 1959 ina leitheid sin de chás.

Tá Alt 28 ceaptha chun an srian a bhaint amach a forchuireadh le hAlt 37 den Acht Arm-Phinsean, 1953, le méadú ar "ath-phinsin" nó ar phinsin "phósta" áirithe a deonadh do dhaoine a urscaoileadh tar éis an dáta (lú Eanáir, 1953) ar a raibh éifeacht ag an srian sin. Nuair a bhí na "hath-phinsin" nó na pinsin "phósta" sin ina gcuid de phinsin mhíchumais ba mhó iontu féin ní i dteannta pinsin Óglaigh na hÉireann ná £450 sa bhliain, coisceadh iad le téarmaí Ailt 37 den Acht 1953 ar na méaduithe a tharraingt chucu a deonadh sna hAchtanna 1953 agus 1957. Is é atá ceaptha le hAlt 28 den Bhille an srian sin a bhaint amach chun a thabhairt go mbeidh éifeacht ag na méaduithe a bhaineann leis na "hath-phinsin" nó na pinsin "phósta" sin ón lú Lúnasa, 1959, amach.

Tá súil agam gur cabhrach mar mhíniú ar an mBille an cur síos atá déanta agam air agus, le linn dom bheith ag críochnú, déanfaidh mé trácht ar aon phointí eile ar gá eolas nó míniú a thabhairt ina dtaobh.

The Bill is mainly concerned with the grant of increases in wound, disability and married pensions and in certain allowances to dependants of deceased persons, payable under the Army Pensions Acts 1923 to 1959. The increases are effective from 1st August, 1959, and in fact are being paid since that date on the authority of a Supplementary Estimate for pensions passed in this House on 22nd July, 1959.

The increases, which are dealt with in Sections 2 to 25 inclusive are. broadly in accordance with the increases for State pensioners, generally, authorised by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement in April, 1959. Officer Pensioners whose pensions are related to their Army pay at the date of their discharge are receiving an increase of 6 per cent. if discharged before 1st September, 1949, and 4 per cent. if they were discharged on or after that date and before 1st April, 1950. These dates, being associated with Army pay changes, are considered to be more appropriate qualifying dates than 1st November, 1948, and 1st November, 1952 the dates mentioned in the Budget Statement for other State pensioners. The 6 per cent. and 4 per cent. increases mentioned are subject to the limitation, however, that they must not have the effect of increasing a pension beyond the amount which would be payable if the recipient had been discharged on 2nd November, 1952, with similar rank, service and degree of disablement. Other pensioners under the Acts, whose pensions are not related to Army pay are receiving an increase of 6 per cent. In the case, however, of the widow of a Signatory of the 1916 Proclamation who did not receive an increase in her annual allowance when State pensions were increased in 1956, it was considered that the amount of the allowance payable to her under Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, should be increased to the level which it would have reached if both the 1956 and 1959 increases applied (6 per cent. in each case). Section 17 of the Bill provides accordingly. The estimated annual cost of the increases provided in the Bill is £11,500.

Section 26 is designed to remove a doubt which arose whether Section 2 of the Army Pensions Act, 1959, fully implemented the intention underlying that section—which was the removal from the Second and Third Schedules to the Act of 1923 of the dependency requirement in respect of the widows and children of deceased persons to whom the Schedules applied. One of the enabling Sections associated with these Schedules (Section 2 of the Army Pensions Act, 1946) was not cited in the 1959 amending provision and this is now being done—with effect from the date on which the Act of 1959 was passed.

Section 27 enables the extended time limit afforded by Section 9 of the Act of 1959 to operate in respect of an application for an allowance under Part II of the Act of 1953 from a surviving relative of a deceased person with pre-Truce service who becomes entitled to the allowance after the death of the relative to whom it was first paid. It was intended that the 1959 Act concession should have applied in such a case.

Section 28 is designed to terminate the restriction imposed by Section 37 of the Army Pensions Act, 1953, on the increase of certain "further" or "married" pensions granted to persons discharged subsequent to the date (1st January, 1953) on which the restriction operated. Such "further" or "married" pensions—where they formed part of disablement pensions which alone or when aggregated with Defence Force pensions exceeded £450 per annum—were prevented by the terms of Section 37 of the Act of 1953 from attracting the increases awarded in the Acts of 1953 and 1957. The purpose of Section 28 of the Bill is to remove that restriction so that with effect from 1st August, 1959, the increases applicable to these "further" or "married" pensions will be enabled to take effect.

I hope that the outline which I have given of the contents of the Bill will have proved informative and helpful and I will endeavour to deal, when I am concluding, with any points on which further information or explanation may be required.

Of course, these increases are being paid and of course they are welcome to the recipients. I am still disappointed that the Minister and the Government have not made some provision for a section of our people who, I think and have thought for a very long time, should be included and that is the widows of people who had disability pensions due to disease—not wounds, because they are included. There are some very hard and serious cases where the volunteer officer, N.C.O. or man contracted disease either pre-Truce or post-Truce or the disease was aggravated by service post-Truce in either forces—I will put it that way— either Executive Forces or the Defence Forces here. They are excluded. These widows do not come in at all under any of these Acts.

For a very long time I have held the view that before we give any further increase in these pensions, we should first make provision for the widows of people who died from disease contracted on service. The sum that is being paid here would go a very long distance to paying it. Personally, I do not believe there is a single pensioner who has a wound pension and whose wife and family are included under the old scale who would say: "No, we must get this increase and leave the others as they are." I think they would voluntarily and gladly forego the increase in their pension to make provision for the widows of these people. The Minister will find memoranda in the office dealing with that subject. He should give it particular attention so that some provision will be made for them.

I am personally aware and so, I am sure, is the Minister—at least if the Minister is not aware there are several officials in his Department who are— of very hard cases—that is the best word I can use—where widows and orphans are caused hardship because of the lack of provision in these various Acts. I did say publicly that I had no intention, while Minister, of increasing any of the pensions until this provision would first be made. I believe that was accepted by the recipients of disability pensions.

I am glad the Minister has extended the time limit in respect of the 1916 signatories and I am glad of the other amendments made. The Minister says that he hopes the statement he made will be helpful. I do not think it is. As I said, when this Estimate was going through, I think the Minister in cases like this should, without naming anybody, give us examples of what it is intended to do so that every person would know what he is entitled to. Perhaps I am guilty of the offence myself, but that does not make it any better. When you get a statement that the Act is being amended and there is a reference to

removal from the Second and Third Schedule to the Act of 1923 of the dependency requirements in respect of widows and children of deceased persons to whom the Schedule applied,

what does that convey to the ordinary person? To whom do these Acts apply? The people do not know what they are entitled to or whether they should apply or not. Does it become automatic for those who have it? This practice of speaking by reference is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

I am always glad to welcome any extension of a time limit. That is being done here in respect of one particular class. It is right that it should be done, but I respectfully submit— every day the number of pensioners becomes fewer—the time limit should not apply at all. My contention is that if you were entitled to a disability pension in 1923, in 1933, in 1943, in 1953, or in 1959, the fact that you did not apply for it prior to now should not debar you. Yet it does. The Minister can be satisfied beyond yea or nay that the person had a valid claim but, because one Act said the last date for application was such and such a time, he cannot get it. We know there have been changing circumstances and changes of mind on the part of various people. There were some people who had an objection to applying for pensions on the grounds that that was not what they fought for and so on. As a matter of fact, a former member of the Fianna Fáil Party has written a play which demonstrates that very fully. I refer to the play It Can't Go On Forever by Mr. McCann. One of the characters portrayed does not apply for his pension because it is against his principle and so on. Necessitas non habet legem. But the time came when necessity knew no law and he felt he could make his application. But Mr. McCann did not point out that he would be late and could not make it then. Mr. McCann should have stressed in the play that, because of the legislation we passed here, not-withstanding the record and the entitlement that person had to a military service pension, he cannot get it now because it is too late.

I shall not deal with military service pensions now, but I shall deal with them at a later stage. I appeal to the Minister to consider the whole question of the widows and orphans of officers, N.C.O.s and men who died or contracted disease or who had military service, that is, disability pensions. The matter should now be examined. For the few thousand pounds that would be involved, I think it would be a great step to take. I appeal to the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party behind the Minister to support me in that plea. Justice would then be done. It has never been done as far as those people are concerned.

The payment of this increase is welcomed by every recipient. They have, I suppose, the complaint that it is not more; but in the circumstances it is fairly generous and acceptable. But the other amendment would be one that would be welcomed by every section. Those who will receive this increase would be well satisfied, I believe, if it were transferred to the others, if the Government felt they could not afford both.

First of all, I should like to compliment the Minister on bringing in this Bill and to thank him, on behalf of the people concerned, for doing so. I would not like to follow Deputy MacEoin all through the speech he has made, but I think we would all have been very proud if either this Government or any of the past Governments could have seen their way to do what Deputy General MacEoin wants. However, we have to be thankful for small mercies.

There is one thing I thought the Minister might be able to do in this Bill and I am disappointed that he has not done it. Under these disability pensions and wound pensions there is still a marriage ban. I think it is the only place where it still obtains. If a man were in receipt of one of these pensions and got married subsequent to 1932 he is not entitled to a married allowance in contrast to a man who got married before 1932, whose wife and family are entitled to an allowance under the Bill. A man who got married in December, 1932 is not entitled to a married allowance. In many cases because of the disability they suffered these men were not in a position to get married earlier. They now find themselves with families much younger than would normally be the case. They are deprived of any allowance under this Bill.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider that point. There is no such ban in the case of disability allowances, in which case the wife is entitled to an allowance, irrespective of the date of marriage. In regard to the pensions now under consideration unless the man married prior to 1932, he is not entitled to the married allowance.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider that matter and to accept an amendment. I would thank the Minister for the length he has gone. It is much appreciated by the people concerned.

I was not quite clear as to the people to whom Deputy MacEoin was referring who are not catered for. I think he must refer to people who got final disability pensions.

You could elect for a final pension and then you were out and men who were hard up at the time did so elect. They were doing the best they could.

The people to whom the Deputy refers were cases in which the percentage disability due to the disease was below 80 per cent. but above 50 per cent. and those people got the option of either accepting a final pension or waiting until such time as the degree of disability might go above 80 per cent., when they would qualify for the ordinary disease pension. They were given the choice and opted for the final pension, which does not carry a married pension. what Deputy MacEoin is asking for is that their original decision should now be ignored and that they should all be placed on the same basis. That, obviously is a big decision to make now. The fact is that it was their own choice at the time.

Deputy MacEoin also suggested that what we should have done was to give samples of the type of cases to which the Bill applies so that everybody would know what he was entitled to and whether he should apply. Nobody has to apply for the increases that are being provided for in this amending Bill. There would be some point if it were the 1959 Act but in this Bill it is merely a question of providing for percentage increases in pensions that are already being paid, and these increases are in fact being paid since 1st August, so that that suggestion would not apply in this case.

Deputy MacEoin also referred to the difficulty of understanding Section 26.

Not to me but to other people.

All we are doing in Section 26 is removing a doubt which arose as to whether the Army Pensions Act, 1959, had done what we intended it to do. The explanation was all given at that time. Advertisements were inserted in the papers to notify the people concerned. That was all done after the enactment of the Army Pensions Act, 1959, and it is just since then that some doubt has cropped up as to whether we effectively did what we set out to do in that Bill and this is merely a technical amendment to establish that position definitely, that we have in fact done what we intended to do.

The difficulty about having no closing date in connection with pensions which are granted for wounds or disease attributable to active service should be fairly obvious. It is the difficulty of establishing the medical fact as to whether the wound or disability is in fact due to that service. Obviously, it is very difficult to establish in the case of an application that would be made only now that the disability or disease or wound was in fact due to service or to something that happened 40 years ago. Obviously, it is desirable, if not essential, that there should be a closing date. As time goes on it will become more and more difficult—impossible, I would say—to establish that the disability was in fact due to service during that time, so that the case for a time limit is not just to cut anybody out but to try to arrange that these things could in fact be decided.

With regard to Deputy Gilbride's point in connection with the time limit that was imposed on marriages to qualify for the further married pension, the marriage had to have taken place before 10th December, 1932. Deputy Gilbride argues that there should be no time limit in that case or that it should be extended. As I have already explained, it would be against all principles that a married element in the pension should be given in respect of a marriage contracted after the date of discharge from the forces in respect of disease or wound, or after the date on which the wound was incurred, but in this case the time limit was extended up to 9th December, 1932. I do not know that it is reasonable to expect that it should be extended further but I will undertake to reconsider the matter, to look into it and to see if there is in fact any justification for extending that marriage date and, if it is decided to do so, a short amending Bill could be brought in but all the arguments that I used on the last occasion against that proposal still appear to apply.

The analogy between special allowances and these Army pensions does not apply. The special allowances do not continue after the person in receipt of them; they do not carry on to the widows and children, for one thing. I do not think there are any other points that I should cover and since this is a Bill to implement the increases given in the Budget I would ask the House to pass it.

Does the Minister consider that it is reasonable that the special allowances are paid to a man when he gets married and that his wife is recognised as being a charge on him? Does the Minister not consider that the philosophy of saying that because he got married after such a date, she married him with all his faults, that he was blemished when she got him, and that she knew it, is not sound?

It is the concept that is always accepted.

That does not make it right.

It is a fundamental concept in this type of legislation. There have been cases in other countries where extensions of the kind proposed gave rise to such things as deathbed marriages. Obviously there has to be some date and the extension given in these cases was up to 1932 where the wound or disability was incurred in the 1916-1923 period, so that it was nine years after the occurrence of the disability that was fixed as the latest date for marriage. That seems to be reasonable and while I undertake to reconsider the matter, I am not giving any promise as to whether the time might be extended or not.

If the lady married him in 1932 she would get the pension but if she married him a week later she would not get it—if she was clever enough to know he was going to die quickly.

The extension was granted for the first time only by the 1953 Act.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th February, 1960.
Barr
Roinn