The time remaining to Deputy Tully, who was in possession, is 17 minutes; the time remaining for the debate on the motion is 1 hour and 30 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Garda Pensioners' Rent Allowance: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that members of the Garda Síochána who retired prior to 21st December, 1960, should have the rent allowances which were paid to them treated as pensionable emolument just as members serving since December, 1960, enjoy that right.— (Deputy Ryan.)
I am sure 17 minutes will be more than adequate for my requirements. As was stated by a number of people, including myself, on the last evening this matter was debated, there seems to be no valid reason why those Gardaí who retired prior to 4th December 1960 should not receive the same consideration from the point of view of pension as do those who retired after that date. The number involved is approximately 2,500. The cost to the State of doing what this motion asks would be relatively small and it would be a diminishing cost over the years. It is not a cost which might increase. The numbers are growing less year by year. The case for it is all the stronger because of that. It is quite true that the Garda Representative Body had been pressing this claim since 1952 and it does not seem logical that, when the decision was finally taken to credit retiring Gardaí with £1 per week rent allowance for pension purposes, that decision should apply only to those who retired since 1960.
Those who are applying for this benefit under this motion are those who, as was stated the last night, in fact established civil law and order in this State. They are the people who joined the Force when it was not popular in some parts of the country to do so and it is on the record, in fact, that not alone were there threats used against some of these men but attempts were made to burn them out and bomb them out. We are all aware of that. But these people established law and order very successfully and they subsequently served under a Government, the members of which had opposed the setting up of the Garda Force in the early days. From that point of view, the Minister will, I think, agree that it is very important that these people should not now be left under the impression that it is because they became members of the Garda Síochána so many years ago they are now being treated in this discriminatory way.
I am sure the Minister is well aware, perhaps better aware than most of us, that in other countries police forces get credit for rent allowance when their pensions are being computed. When the case of the Revenue Commissioners v. Guard White came before the Courts it was decided that the rent allowance formed part of salary for income tax purposes. Surely it is only reasonable that salary for income tax purposes should also be computed as salary for pension purposes.
Hear, hear !
It is all very well for the Minister to say they are getting the concession now. Those who are retiring now are getting it admittedly, but that is not an answer to the case where the older Garda pensioners are concerned. In fact it makes the whole position so much worse because it seems grossly unfair that those who retired before the operative date of this change are in fact receiving a lower pension anyway. Added to that, they must now suffer this further reduction because they are refused credit for something which is now recognised, and has been recognised since 1960 as part and parcel of their emoluments.
The fact that it was as a result of arbitration that the decision was given should have influenced the Minister when he was fixing the operative date. Had it been merely something he himself decided to give, one could understand that he would be entitled to make terms as to the date of commencement. In fact, this decision came as a result of arbitration and it was therefore mandatory on the Minister, but he certainly got his pound of flesh when he insisted that only those who retired after December 1960 would be credited with the allowance.
I do not see why the Minister could not at this stage give the very small concession asked. Pensions have been increased for other people. Last year, we had a long discussion here on pensions and rates of pay for another branch of the Department of Justice and the sky was the limit. Surely, when we are dealing with people who nobody can claim are overpaid, people who did a very hard job and did it well, our aim should be to treat them in a christian way.
No matter what way one looks at this motion, one comes back to the vital matter: first, the number involved is relatively small—2,500; secondly, that number will diminish over the years—it does not involve a recurring liability which will be building up— and thirdly, the people concerned are mostly people who helped to establish the State, who helped to establish the civil law of this State and who made the country at that time possible to live in.
I trust this motion will not be treated as an expression of the whim of one Party or another or made a controversial matter. Deputy Tully mentioned that a mere 2,500 are involved and that, therefore, it would mean a mere £2,500 taking it as £1 per head. In Dublin city, a sum of £11,500 is equivalent to a penny on the rates and I shall leave it to the Minister, who is very good at arithmetic, to work out the calculations involved in the one-fifth of a penny represented by £2,500.
The last speaker paid an eloquent tribute to the work done by the old members of the Garda. I agree their task at times was anything but pleasant. However, I confidently leave this matter to the Minister who is big in heart. I do not believe anyone else could handle it better. Deputy Tully stated that in other countries this allowance is included but the all-important point is the matter of dates which have caused so much trouble, dates before and after. While I have not always agreed with everything done by the Garda Síochána, they have proved themselves to be not only efficient officers but excellent representatives of this country in all branches of sport who brought the name of this country to the forefront all over the world. It is not merely a question of whether the proposer or the supporters of this motion will gain anything from it. It is a question of justice which would be a scarce commodity in this country, were it not for the efforts of the people about whom we are talking.
I do not know if I should congratulate Fine Gael. I have always had a great opinion of their political sagacity, if I had nothing else on which to congratulate them. I do not know if there was ever a motion before this House to which so many Fine Gael members put their names. It is the sort of motion in respect of which, as far as they are concerned politically there is everything to be gained and nothing to be lost and, therefore, I expected all their names to be down. Of course, Labour not wanting to be outdone went even a little further than Fine Gael were inclined to go.
Deputy Ryan, in speaking here on the motion earlier, said that the Garda are the one branch of the public service who are compelled by law to contribute a certain percentage of their pay to their pensions and that other branches of the public service are not compelled to make any contribution at all. That is true, of course, in regard to the Civil Service as a result of a settlement made on salaries and wages many years ago when their contributions were removed, and in more recent times it was done for the teachers. I could well imagine its being said at a future date if the Garda are getting an increase: "You are now contributing 2½ per cent to your pension and you are seeking a five per cent increase. Why not make it 2½ per cent. and wipe out the pension contribution? The result would be the same and we shall not have the inconvenience of deducting this 2½ per cent." I do not think there is much in that point. In the local service, on the other hand, the superannuation remains, and remains at five per cent in nearly all cases. There are certain exceptions which I may come to again.
There are a very big number of employees in the local service, something like 22,000 who, Deputy O'Higgins believes, have a right by law, being civil servants, to have their pensions calculated on salary plus rent allowance, if that allowance is given. There is no foundation for that statement at all. I do not know if rent allowance is given in any case but if it is, there is certainly no law behind the matter which says it should be reckoned for pension purposes.
As Deputy Tully pointed out later on, some few years ago, a settlement was made in respect of certain employees of local authorities under which the allowance that was counted for rent became pensionable but that was only in certain cases, and it really brings them into line with the present position as far as the Garda Síochána are concerned. As Deputies are aware, if members of the Garda Síochána go into a house owned by the Board of Works or by the Government, they have to pay rent, but even so, that does not prevent their having that rent counted for pension purposes. However, there is this difference to be noted that in the case of the Garda Síochána, the provision is 2½ per cent, whereas in the local authorities it is five per cent as a rule; in certain cases and for a certain length of time, three per cent was the contribution from mental hospital attendants but now it is back to five per cent.
Prior to 21st December, 1960—just to state the history of the position as accurately as I can—rent allowances paid to members of the Garda were not reckoned for pensions. An agreement was reached at that time by the Conciliation Council, and it was decided in that agreement to merge the rent allowances with pay. At that time, of course, there were many categories of Garda, officers and so on, and whether they were living in the country or in the city, the rent allowances given at that time varied greatly according to the place of residence and rank. A comprehensive settlement was made giving an increase in pay to the Garda and the officers, and it was laid down that they would pay rent in future for whatever premises they might occupy. Even a single Garda taking lodging in the barracks was charged for that lodging as well.
As I say, that agreement applied from 21st December, 1960, and I think it is the agreement on which this debate largely depends. Like every other agreement of its kind, this agreement dated from that date, 21st December. So far as I am aware, no agreement of this kind has ever been made retrospective. It applied from the date the Garda were paid the new rate of pay and from that date also each Garda paid rent, if he had rent to pay to the authorities. The pension of a Garda retiring after that date would be calculated on his pay at the time of his retirement. If a Garda retired, say, in January, 1962, he would have a higher pension than a Garda who retired early in December. That, of course, is a common occurrence in the Civil Service and, I take it, in employment generally, because where a pension is calculated on retiring pay, those who retire immediately after an increase in wages or salaries have a very big advantage over those who retired before the increase. That has applied up to the present time.
There were a few exceptions to that rule, and in case some exceptions might be cited, I want to say that exceptions have not been made, so far as I can find, except where commitments were entered into. If there had been a commitment in that agreement, and if it had been part of the agreement that this would be retrospective so far as pensions were concerned, for a year, or two years, or all time, of course that agreement would be carried out. There was no such clause in the agreement.
We sometimes agree here in the House to give an increase in pay to the Civil Service and the usual procedure is that if I, or whatever Minister is here, say that the increase will come in on 1st August—the usual date —and if a Supplementary Estimate is brought in, that increased pay is given from 1st August even though the legislation has not been passed. In fact, legislation relating to increased pay from 1st August last has not yet been passed or debated in the Dáil although it has been introduced. As I say, that agreement came into operation on 21st December, 1960. There was, of course, a revision of pay and since then, there was the eighth round of wage increases. That did not alter the position because the eighth round of wage increases purported only to increase the pay of the Garda much the same as was done in various other parts of the Civil Service.
This motion seeks to give an increase in pensionable salaries on the same basis as 1960 to the oldest living pensioners. As I say, that was not provided for, and neither is it usual that a thing like that would be done. It would entail the retrospective granting of pay increases involving recalculation of pensions from the date of retirement on the money then paid. It would be very difficult to find out what rent allowances each individual was entitled to at the time of retirement. The rent allowances varied according to rank and location and I think they varied through the years. To go back over all the pensioners for all time would entail an examination of each individual to find out what rent allowance he had at the time of retirement and trying to recalculate backwards on that basis what his amended pension should be.
In our last increase in pensions, what we provided for, and what will be provided for in the Bill which I hope to bring before the House in the very near future, is that the pension of each individual public servant, whether civil servant, teacher or Garda, will be brought up to what he would have had if he had retired on a date towards the end of 1955, taking into account the people in his grade, at his level of increments, and so on. That was a very big job because it was the first time an increase in pensions of that nature was given. Before that, all the increased pensions were on a percentage basis. That was a comparatively easy matter and could be calculated in a few days. It was an attempt to bring the older pensioners up to a particular point, and give them pensions equal to those of their colleagues who retired at that date in 1955.
In addition to that, we gave a five per cent increase to them, and to those who retired between 1955 and 1960, a six per cent increase was also given. That was part of a general revision, and I expressed the hope when bringing it in that we would, as the years go by and Budgets permit, bring the level of pensions forward perhaps a couple of years at a time and that, say, when the next Budget would permit, we would bring them up to the 1959 level or some such level and eventually try to get them into relationship to other pensions, but whether that relationship would be on the basis of equality or parity or whether it would lag somewhat behind I cannot say at this time.
What we are asked to do here is to give exceptional treatment to one class and for one reason. I am sure that if I were to think over the various groups that are drawing pensions, I could think of circumstances attaching to some groups that might merit the same consideration as is being given by some speakers to these Garda pensioners.
I should like to mention a point about the pensioners who have been paying the 2½ per cent. The men who retired before 21st December, 1960, had not been paying a contribution on the rent allowances and, therefore, it is not true to say, as some Deputies have said, that they have paid for this. They did not pay for it. I do not think that is an important point because, as I am going to point out later, these men will probably be reached. What the time will be, I cannot say.
Insinuations have been made here that the Government have been unfair to the Garda pensioners. I want to say about that that in the last revision of pensions, they were brought up to the 1955 level. They then got six per cent on that and, between 1955 and 1960, they got six per cent, apart from those other increases. It has added up to the point where the Garda as a class have received an increase of 15.9 per cent in their pensions while the civil servants as a class have received 12.8 per cent. I mention that to show that there has been no discrimination against the Garda and that they have done better on the whole than other similar classes.
I want to make it clear that the rent allowance can be recognised only when a general revision is made bringing them up to the level of their colleagues who retired after 1960. They will automatically be brought up at that stage and will receive equivalent treatment to other classes of State pensioners. The principle we have adopted in our last round of increases in pensions is to equate pensions with some date relating to the time they have retired. That is done in accordance with what we can afford to contribute. On the last occasion, we took the end of 1955. It is hoped that that procedure will be repeated in Budgets to come, when the Budget position permits it, and eventually these men will be reached.
Another point argued by some Deputies was that the allowance given to the Garda for their rent was taxable. It is argued from that that the allowance should be pensionable. I do not see anything in that argument. There must be many people outside who are taxed on their incomes, including rent, and they may have no right whatever to a pension. These two things do not connect in any way.
Deputy Dr. Browne said that the Garda would fare much better through arbitration. In the eighth round, the matter of their increases was decided by conciliation. That means that the Representative Council of the Garda Síochána were agreeable to the amount decided on and accepted it on behalf of the Garda generally. That must be taken as meaning that they got a recommendation with which they were satisfied and that they accepted it.
Deputy O'Higgins read a letter from the Minister for Justice to a representative of the Garda pensioners. I should like to say that I do not accept Deputy O'Higgins's interpretation of that letter. However, apart from that, I am sure that the Minister for Justice, when writing that letter, which was a sympathetic letter, had no idea that it would be handed over by a representative of the pensioners to the Fine Gael Party to be used as political propaganda against the Government. I do not like lecturing junior Minister but I hope the Minister for Justice will be more careful in future and know whom he is writing to.
Mr. Ryan
Was the Minister himself not sympathetic to them when he wrote to them?
I have always been sympathetic but when I write to these people, I do not expect them to provide the Fine Gael Party with political propaganda.
Mr. Ryan
Are they not entitled to consult their public representatives?
Yes, but handing over letters is a different matter. The Fine Gael Party may serve their own political purposes by using these letters but it does not serve the Garda position. Deputy Coogan said that we were politically opposed to the Garda in the Civil War period. That may have been so and Deputy Tully followed it up by saying that we should be more careful for fear we might be accused of discriminating against them. We have done more for these Garda pensioners than the Coalition Government did before 1954 and 1957. As I have already stated, in our last distribution in increases of pensions, we gave the Garda 15.9 per cent and we gave the civil servants 12.8 per cent. I would like to assure the Deputies and the people concerned that we intend to continue to do justice to these people. In fact, we have done a little more than justice. On account of the way correspondence has been used in this House, we will have to be more careful about what we write and keep our counsels to ourselves. We will listen to their representations and keep our counsels to ourselves.
Finally, I should say that I do not think there is a case for this at all. There is no case that can be made in equity and there is certainly no case in law. Deputy Tully made the case that the cost would not be very much and that it should be conceded. The cost is not exorbitant. It is something like £55,000. It is not insignificant either. We oppose the Fine Gael motion because it is not called for in equity or legally. Therefore, I must ask the Dáil to reject the motion.
Is there not a precedent for this in the case of the pre-1950 primary teachers? Those teachers who retired previous——
Acting-Chairman
The Deputy has not been called on. Is he putting a question?
I want to know if there is a connection between this pension business and the lump sum granted to teachers who retired after 1950. Some of them are referred to as pre-1950 teachers. Others, after 1950, got the lump sum. Eventually, the lump sum was given to the pre-1950 teachers. Is that any precedent for this present business of pensions now?
I am afraid I shall have to take some little time to marshal my thoughts on these two matters but I do not think they are exactly similar.
I am sure every Deputy is disappointed with the Minister's speech. I think he is disappointed himself because the manner in which he has dealt with the motion is unworthy of him. Certainly it does not show any great regard for the ability or administrative capacity of his colleague, the Minister for Justice.
The Minister has adopted the attack technique in asking for the rejection of the motion, not having any other argument. He said he has never seen a motion with so many names to it from Fine Gael. If the Minister would go to his archives or to Lower Mount Street, he would find many Fianna Fáil motions with just as many names——
I do not remember——
He would find examples many times over and for less worthy objectives. The case for these people is simple. Up to a certain point, in Garda salaries the rent allowance was not reckoned for income tax purposes. Then there was a change and it was so reckoned. Surely, when that occurred, there was a change in the whole circumstances? When it was regarded as part of the pay and emoluments of a Garda, surely it was part of his pay? Therefore, in equity, it was part of his pay for pension purposes. It is as simple as that. The Minister for Finance himself admits the equity of that by his 1960 Order. We have been asking him to rectify what the Government fail to do, knowing that it ought to be done. We are giving him the opportunity. We are helping him to do what he was convinced should be done from 1960. We are giving him the help to do it prior to that.
Suppose we were opposing it. Suppose some Fianna Fáil Deputy or number of Deputies brought in a motion and that we in Fine Gael opposed it. The Minister could very easily say: "Because there is no unanimity upon this matter, I cannot accept it." Therefore, he should be glad of the opportunity we have given him. He asserts that one of the reasons he cannot consider it is that there is not precedent. I do not know any word in Government or Civil Service vocabulary as abused as that simple word. It is the greatest defence that any Minister has when he wants to do nothing and when he wants to reject something he is convinced should be done.
The Minister for Justice was convinced of the equity of this claim. The Minister for Justice asserted that he urged and made representations to the Government and to the Minister for Finance to accede to this request but that the Minister for Finance did not do so. For what reason? I would say, again, the reason was financial; that it was not just opportune. We get merely a repetition of that this evening.
The Minister says there will be a grading-up. He says there will be a general review and a levelling-up at a later stage. "In 1960, we brought it up to the 1955 level; we shall bring it up at a later stage." Is that not "Live horse and you will get grass"? The people affected are becoming fewer and fewer every day. They are now the honoured retired servants of this State. I should not like to suggest for a moment that the Government could be charged with having any hostility to the Garda: I do not think they have. I do not think there are any grounds for such a suggestion because no force in any country in the world ever served the elected Government of their country as loyally as our Civic Guards.
The elected Government here, in the years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936, could rely fully on the Garda to carry out the law as it then existed. We might not like some of their conduct but still they did it. They might not like it themselves but yet they did it because it was the direction of the elected Government of this country. Today, we are told there is no comparison between the Civil Service and the Garda. I do not think we want a comparison. The truth of the matter is that, generally speaking, the Civil Service rates of pay at all times were considerably higher than the Garda pay in the relative ranks. I doubt if even the Commissioner had the equivalent pay of an Assistant Secretary of any Department but he should be so graded, approximately.
Be that as it may, there never was any housing—except in very special circumstances, as the Minister says— or rent allowance to civil servants but there was to the Garda. The Garda were put into barracks as single men. They had to occupy them and their pay was less because they had this living accommodation, no matter whether it was good or bad. We know that when the Civic Guards were instituted in this country, they took over any of the old barracks that were left and they had to go into all sorts of houses, which they had to accept and they had to work under most adverse circumstances.
The all-important point to remember is that the courts have decided that for the purpose of income tax the rent allowance is taxable. That is the established position and, that being so, it automatically follows that if it were calculated for income tax purposes, it should also be calculated for pension purposes.
The Minister says the sum involved is not small. The larger it is, the greater the obligation to pay because the greater is the amount these people are being wrongfully denied. If it were only a small sum, the Minister could say that when it was distributed over 2,000 people, it would be a matter of small concern, but when the case is substantiated that there is a large sum involved, I submit that makes the case for payment all the more urgent because the larger the amount retained from those people, the greater the injustice. I assert there should be no hesitation on the part of the Minister in carrying out the wishes of his colleague in the Department of Justice in this respect. The Minister for Justice was convinced it should be paid; the Government were convinced it should be paid when they brought in the Order of 1960, but they said it did not apply to the men of yesterday but only to the men of tomorrow.
I submit it is all-important that not only should justice be done in this case but that it should be seen to be done. These men rendered valuable service to this State. It is a tribute to them that they went out and did their duty since the time of their formation and that they were among the very few police forces in the world to do so with only a baton. Thank God, they still go on duty with the baton as their only form of defensive and offensive weapon—the baton and the notebook —and I have heard many people say that the notebook was even more dangerous than the baton. Be that as it may, they discharged their duty in a very unselfish and reliable way and I do not think it is too much to ask that the Government reconsider the whole question. I do not believe the Minister for Finance is rejecting this on his own. I believe it is a Government decision and it is for that reason that I appeal to the Government to reconsider this and see that justice is done to these very faithful servants.
Generally speaking, the Minister's entire case was that the Garda are well treated. That is a relative matter. To the person who has nothing, £5 a week seems a lot of money; to the person who has £2 a week, a man who has £7 a week appears to have a lot of money. When the Minister says that Garda allowances were increased by 15.9 per cent during the period when Civil Service allowances generally were increased by 12.6 per cent he is again making comparisons that should not be made.
I shall conclude with this argument: the Minister said it would be establishing a precedent, that there never had been retrospection in cases such as this. I do not want to be taken as making an attack on it, but I wonder if that applied in relation to former Chief Justices' pensions? Mind you, the award in that case was a substantial one. Whether it is a month, three months or three years, I submit the principle has been admitted and, therefore, should not be rejected in this case. This proposal may be rejected on any other ground but not on that one. I submit to the Minister and the Government that they should reconsider this whole question. These men will not enjoy these benefits for eternity: they are human beings and their lives will come to an end.
I should like to join with Deputy MacEoin in the appeal he has made to the Government. It is unfortunate that a matter of this kind, which has to do with the very elementary and simple right which should be accorded to a limited body of men who carried out a very difficult and at times very dangerous task in former years, should become a political issue. Perhaps there is a lesson in what has been said here this evening for other organisations, a lesson about the manner in which they should approach politicians and the extent to which they should put dependence on one Party or another.
There is nobody in this House who is not anxious to see justice done to the ex-Gardaí. The question is one of the mechanics of the thing. The Minister for Finance has stated he rejects the proposition on the grounds of equity and lack of precedents. These are terms I have heard called into use many times when, in fact, the real reason was that it meant the expenditure of more money, and the question arose as to where that money was to come from. It is not outside the capacity of the Minister for Finance, surely, to find the relatively small amount, £55,000, required to meet this demand, and I would appeal to him and to the Government to try to find that money between now and Budget day.
I do not think there is any lack of goodwill towards the pensioners concerned on the part of any Party here. Members of Parties on both sides of the House are at one in their anxiety to see that justice is done here. Accordingly, I find it difficult to understand why it should be made a political issue. I certainly do not think it is a matter that should be put to a division, particularly in view of the general agreement there is that it is purely a question of the mechanics involved in trying to induce the Minister to do something. He has said something will be done in the future. I urge him to do it in the forthcoming Budget. I would ask that the matter be left that way instead of creating a position which will do no good whatever to the pensioners concerned. If this matter becomes an issue and there is a division in this House, the people who will suffer will not be the members of the House or the members of political Parties. The people who will suffer will be the Garda pensioners, whom most Deputies here are anxious to help.
The case for this motion has been well and thoroughly made. I rise to support it because I believe we are dealing with men who have given excellent service to this State. That service should be recognised as well as the State can possibly afford to recognise it. These men in their time did not receive anything like the pay, or, indeed, the conditions, the men we have at present are enjoying. Nevertheless, they did an excellent job. At the same time, they lived in quarters that were often very poor and they had none of the comforts, amenities and privileges the men of the present have. I realise the situation in some cases today leaves a good deal to be desired. Nevertheless, great improvements have taken place over the years.
These men did their job well. They mixed with the people. They knew the people intimately. In their time, it can be said, there were very few unsolved, serious crimes. That was so because, whatever else they were, they were first-class policemen. That is what we want and that is what we should acknowledge now. I am told that a man who retired ten years ago receives by way of pension approximately half the amount given to a man of similar rank retiring today. Surely no case can be made in justice and equity for that distinction? Surely the man who served the country over a long and difficult period is at least entitled to similar treatment now in his retirement as the man retiring today? I think that no case can be made against that. Any attempt to make a case against it cannot be based on justice and equity.
There are many things that can be said about these men in the past—the difficulties under which they lived, the lack of transport facilities, the poor accommodation and the poor pay. During their time, their pay, comthank paratively speaking, was very small. Nevertheless, they went about their work and did a good job. Here we have them to-day being very badly treated in retirement. Nobody can say that the people retiring to-day are over-rewarded for their services. Yet they get twice as much as the man who retired ten years ago.
Personally, I do not know how anybody can stand up and defend that position. Certainly, I would not like to be the Minister for Finance who tries to make a case for the continuation of that situation. I want to support the motion and exhort the Minister, as other Deputies have done, to grant what it seeks. The sum involved is said to be considerable and, as Deputy MacEoin said, that fact indicates the extent of the injustice and it indicates also the obligation that is ours to meet it.
In common with the other Deputies who have appended their names to this motion, I feel that in accepting it we would be merely doing justice to the members of the Garda Síochána affected by its terms. It has been truly said that these men in their time rendered remarkable service to this country. Any disability they may be suffering from now in relation to this matter should be rectified.
The terms of the motion are clear and the case put forward is, to my mind, an unanswerable one. The remarks made by the other Deputies supporting this motion have set out the reasons for its being tabled. We feel that in asking the House to agree to it we are merely asking for justice in relation to this matter. I wish to join with the other Deputies in appealing to the Government to meet the just and fair demands outlined in the motion. If they do so, they will be merely giving to these people their just rights.
There have been circumstances in which special measures have been introduced from time to time to meet the legitimate requirements of some sections of our public service who, for some reason or another, have been omitted from benefits conferred on colleagues. It is in these circumstances we feel we are not asking anything too great. The cost involved would be very little, but it would mean a lot to these men who rendered such valuable service. We feel we are not asking anything outrageous but something reasonable and well merited. We feel the Government would be acting quite reasonably in accepting the terms of the motion and providing for the increased pensions and gratuities outlined in it as being fully deserved by the members of the Garda Síochána. I have nothing to add except to submit that in these circumstances the Government should accept the motion.
Nobody is offering? Deputy Ryan, to conclude.
Mr. Ryan
I thought some Deputies might overcome their embarrassment and express their support for the motion.
The floor is strewn with Aunt Sallys of the making of the Minister for Finance, which the Minister for Finance put up and knocked down. He is a very good marksman, as we know from experience, in knocking down Aunt Sallys. However, I do not think that kind of marksmanship is good enough where it is a matter of serious consequence to many people who have given their best years in unselfish service to the State.
I find it hard to comprehend the attitude of a Deputy like Deputy Dunne who queries the wisdom of dividing on this matter. I have little patience with anybody who comes into this House to express support for a motion and states that we should not vote on it because the Minister is not prepared to accept the motion. If we find a Government denying justice to a section of the people, we must make it clear that we disagree with the Government and there is no way in a democracy in which that can be done so effectively as going into the Division Lobby. Earlier in the debate, the Minister for Finance shrugged his shoulders, which supported a worried head, and mumbled that there was no need for a division. I suppose we are expected to understand from that that the Minister was not unsympathetic but where a matter affects people who may be dead by the time justice is done to them, one cannot stand idly by and see a continuing injustice.
Therefore, while we have no desire to lambaste the Government, and while we have no desire to cause anybody political embarrassment in relation to a matter which is above politics, we must declare where we stand in this matter so that there can be no doubt about it. These men are entitled to this small modicum of justice, if not from this Government, then from the Fine Gael Government when they assume office, because if we go into the Division Lobby to vote for this motion, we commit our Party beyond yea or nea to the giving of this pension allowance to the retired members of the Garda Síochána. I have no hesitation in declaring that that is the intention of my Party when returned to power. If Fianna Fáil want the credit for doing it, now is the time to do it.
This is something which is in no way affected by the Government's White Paper and their claim for a pay pause. This is a claim which has been made for several years. It is one which the Minister for Finance indicated was something which sooner or later would receive his favourable consideration. Last year, he received a deputation from the Garda Pensioners' Association in connection with the overall scheme of rent increases for all sections of the public service. At that time, as on previous occasions, the Association made a special case for the rent allowance and the Minister then did not, as far as I am aware, make all the empty arguments which he made against this motion tonight.
We are aware that later on the Minister for Justice went on record as supporting this claim. If that is the situation, we feel that now is the time to grant it. The Minister for Finance stated that this is something which had to be considered in the light of the general budgetary situation but last year it would appear there was more money in the Government pocket than there is this year. Last year, the Minister was unable to do it so we have had another 12 months of injustice. It is quite clear now from the Government's attitude that we will have a further longer period of postponement. It seems to me that whenever the budgetary position is likely to permit an increase in pensions, it will be in a period of inflation when there is more money stirring but by the time that inflationary period comes about, the pensioners will be in a worse position. They would therefore need to get a tremendous increase to cover all their losses and the amount of money which the Government would require would be doubled. Hence we would have another time lag before giving to the pensioners the amount to which they are entitled.
This is not something which has to be considered in relation to the overall public pension situation. This is something related to a very small number of people, to the members of the Garda who retired prior to 20th December, 1960. The Minister stated, quite rightly—we accept his contention—that this debate rests on the agreement of 20th December, 1960, and he then added an obiter dictum that no such agreement is ever retrospective. In our motion, we are not asking that the increase be made retrospective. We feel in justice that it should be retrospective certainly to 20th December, 1960, but we have not asked for that because we felt that the best way of getting the Government to accept the motion, without the need for any lobbying or any division, was to be perfectly reasonable in our approach. Therefore, we asked for something which the Government could give and which the Government could not say created a precedent. But, as Deputy MacEoin said, there is nothing in the law of this land which makes it impossible to do something unless there is a precedent there for doing it. If that were so, we would be wasting our time as a Legislature and the Government would be wasting their time in making up new policies—trying to think up new ideas.
In the whole pension code over the years, as the Minister acknowledged, we have improved step by step. We are beginning to close the gap between pensioners now retiring and people who retired years ago. I hope the day will come when we will be like many of the nations in Europe who are members of the European Economic Community where pensions are not based on what a person was earning at the date of retirement but upon what people of equivalent rank now serving are receiving. That is accepted in most enlightened democracies in these days, but for some reason we have continued to regard as sacrosanct a pension plan devised during the Franco-Prussian War. If we accept this motion, all we will be doing is giving to men who retired on or before 20th December, 1960, what every person who has left the Force since then has received.
How much will it mean per man per year? One must accept an average figure because, as the Minister pointed out, there were different rates of rent allowances, depending on a person's location or his rank, but it would be roughly £35 per year per man. The cost to the State would in this year be about £60,000. Unlike any other financial commitment the State may undertake, this is one which would be declining year after year until the last of those pensioners had gone to his eternal reward. This is not something which could possibly increase, because there is no person to whom it would apply who like the worm could double himself or treble himself and, therefore, multiply the claims which could be made on the State. If it is not done this year it is going to be done some other year, so why not now?
The Minister has tried to draw a parallel between the contribution made by the Garda and the contribution made by local authority employees for pension purposes. If I am right— and I am sorry that the Minister is not here to put me right if I am wrong—it is only local Government officials who were recruited since 1948 who are making any contribution towards their pensions, so that the majority of local authority employees are not making any contribution. The Minister's argument in that regard is, therefore, not as accurate or as overwhelming as he pretended it to be. The Minister has conceded that there have been several cases where wage claims have been compromised by abandoning the provision for contribution to pension schemes. It is quite likely that the same will happen to the local authority employees, and, indeed, it would appear to be a sensible thing, because there is hardly any employee in the private sector who has to make contributions similar to those which State employees of this kind are asked to pay.
Another of the Aunt Sallys which the Minister for Finance put up was that he saw no justification whatsoever for arguing that the rent allowance should be calculated as a pensionable emolument because the State regarded the rent allowance as part of wages or salary while men were serving in the Force. The reason he advanced for that was that there are many people paying income tax who never receive a pension at all. Of course, it is perfectly true, but I am going to put a question to the Minister: can he quote to me any case of a person whose pension is based upon what he earned having a reduction made in his pension in respect of that proportion of his pay which was notionally compensation to him for his rent? He would not find it throughout the length and breadth of this or any other country. If he wants to analyse this income tax argument let him do it properly and objectively. He will find that there is no case where emoluments were regarded as wages or salaries for pension purposes where the rent element was left out of it entirely.
If it were, we would have this situation—it is taken as a rule of thumb that the cost of housing in most cases represents between one-fifth and one-sixth of a man's income. That covers the outgoings he has to pay on his house. If every Department of State were to find itself in a situation where the State said: "We are going to reduce your pension by one-fifth or one-sixth because while you were serving and receiving wages and salaries, one-fifth or one-sixth was for rent allowance, and therefore, we are going to reduce your pension by that amount", there would be an outcry and a march upon the Dáil and all the Garda serving in the city would not be able to hold them back. There would be a hue and cry, and every member of the Fianna Fáil Party, if they were in Opposition, would be putting down a motion with great speed and fighting for it with greater vigour than we are for this small portion of justice for a reducing number of people.
That is the Gilbertian situation which the Minister for Finance states he is unable to change, a situation which he says is based upon reason so that it is unreasonable to argue otherwise. Of all the thin arguments advanced, the thinnest of the lot was the assumed fury of the Minister that a letter from the Minister for Justice should have been quoted in this House, when that letter was sent by the Minister for Justice as Minister to the Pensioners' Association. The Minister knows well that such letters are public property and are intended to be public property. If the Minister wishes to convey to any group of people in this State that he is sympathetic to their proposals or claims and by so doing wishes to get the kudos for the support he is giving to that claim, then he is entitled to that kudos, and if anybody reads that letter in Oireachtas Éireann, it is only advertising the Minister. It is only giving wider publicity to the fact that the claim has the Minister's support, and he intends that whenever it is approved, even if by a Fine Gael Government, he will get the credit for it and he will be the first to read that letter in this House.
This onslaught upon elderly men who tried properly to engage the support of all the people in this House is unworthy of any Minister, and particularly of the Minister for Finance, and it is done by him only because it is the only escape door he can find from the very shabby situation in which he found himself here today. The only hope the Minister for Finance has is that when the taste of this debate has passed away, Fianna Fáil can keep going around along with Deputy Dunne saying that the Minister would have given it if Fine Gael had not read the letter from the Minister for Justice in the House stating that that Minister was in support of it.
I can see that the Minister for Social Welfare finds the situation somewhat amusing. I have no doubt that he is embarrassed.
I find your argument amusing.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister for Finance came into this House intending to reject this motion and was just delighted to have found some little artificial manoeuvre that could be used. We are not going to allow the Government away with that kind of thing, and I do not believe that the Garda Pensioners' Association will accept it either, because otherwise it will be the end of Parliamentary democracy in this country, the end of free speech and of the right of free association and of everything except to go crawling to the Fianna Fáil Party in order to get anything. If they had not come to all Parties in this House to correct the situation dealt with in this motion, would they be in any better position? We know now that they would not. We know that from the letter of the Minister for Justice and from declarations by the Minister for Finance from time to time. The situation is that the Government are annoyed and irritated that we should have put down this motion in order to get even the small share of justice which these men are entitled to and have been entitled to for a long time.
In order to find some argument for his attitude the Minister stated that it would be impossible to implement our motion because to do so would mean very difficult inquiries and calculations to discover what amount each particular person would be entitled to. If that is the only worthwhile reason the Minister can advance, I think that the association will be prepared to compromise and accept for each retired member of the Garda an average figure for the increase, just as serving members have agreed to an average figure being included in their pay in lieu of rent allowances. I am quite certain the Association will find a way for the Minister to get out of that difficulty.
I just want to end by pointing out that the agreement of December 1960 was made between serving men and their representatives at conciliation level. The pensioners were not represented at that meeting but members of the Garda received certain rights there. We believe that those rights should be conferred on those who, because God put them into this world before that, had retired before the 20th December, 1960. We should not hold their age against them. They served the State well and are deserving of this small degree of justice.
Debate adjourned.