When the debate was adjourned last week, I was dealing with the case of abatement as it applied to ex-Army officers who are employed as teachers. The position is that because of the abatement, persons employed in that capacity are not enabled to avail of or at least are deprived of the opportunity to avail of certain perquisites which are available to other teachers, such as fees for examination papers or for supervising at public examinations. In addition, people on the Reserve of Officers are liable to have the amount payable to them for the three weeks of annual training deducted from their pensions. In fact, as I understand it, the only reason why a number of ex-officers remain in the Reserve is that the Reserve grant of £50 is not affected by the abatement.
This measure deals with a very limited number of cases. I would be interested to hear from the Minister approximately how many cases will benefit by it and what is the estimated total cost. It is proposed, though I am not sure if there is power to do so, to include ex-Army personnel by regulation but the Bill as drafted excludes them from the benefits of it and there are a number of points which many ex-Army personnel have expressed concern about.
The effect of abatement can be quite far-reaching in the cases of ex-Army personnel because, with one or two other possible exceptions, the age of retirement in respect of Army personnel is in most cases much lower than that which applies elsewhere. Depending on rank, retirement in the Army operates as a relatively early age in a number of cases. The result is that if ex-Army personnel are employed in some other capacity under the State, or indirectly by State or semi-State bodies, abatement will take place and the position therefore is that in some cases men of comparatively young ages find that if they get alternative employment, either from the State or semi-State bodies, abatement will apply.
The best way to illustrate this point is to quote particular cases. For example, at present an Army pensioner whose pension is £400 a year and whose salary, say, at the date of retirement was £1,200 a year will, if he is employed in the Civil Service and receives a salary not exceeding £800 a year, draw the whole of his pension. On the other hand, if he is in receipt of a salary from the Civil Service of £900 a year, his pension is abated to £300. In other words, the total of his Army pension and of his present salary must not exceed the salary he was receiving at the date of his retirement. Therefore, the Army pension is correspondingly abated.
There is another anomaly in that the salary payable in respect of the rank with which he retired has by now probably been increased as a result of adjustments, either on the basis of the various wage and salary round increases or perhaps on the basis of a status award. It is likely that the salary of £1,200 for the rank he held has now been raised to £1,500. This is ignored entirely and the abatement of his pension continues.
This Bill, while it appears to deal with certain anomalies, does not deal with the principle involved. The pension earned was presumably earned for service rendered in whatever rank or appointment the individual held, and the salary for the new position is also presumably given on the basis of the ability and capacity of the person so appointed being appropriate to the particular office to which he is appointed. In other words, he is qualified by experience, or whatever other qualifications are appropriate, but he then finds that, although he is personally qualified and fitted for the appointment, his pension will be abated. It seems to me that the measure as at present drafted does not cover the Defence Forces Pensions (Amendment) Scheme which was in Statutory Instrument No. 247 of 1964. I am not clear whether that particular Statutory Instrument will stand because it is not listed amongst those which the Bill proposes to repeal.
There is, however, another aspect of this matter. A number of ex-Army personnel are employed in State or semi-State bodies and because of the age at which a number of such people are employed by these bodies, it is possible they will eventually qualify for a pension, having already had the minimum period necessary to qualify for an Army pension. As I understand it, a number of pension schemes operated by these State bodies—many of which have to get the sanction of either the Minister for Finance or other Ministers—include a clause which will prevent a person qualifying for the second pension and, if he so qualifies, he will be liable to have his Army pension abated. This raises a much wider question than the mere abatement of pensions.
These State companies have benefited from, and their boards have recognised, the peculiar qualifications which many ex-Army personnel possess and which fit them for posts of leadership, management and the control of staff and, indeed, a whole range of positions which it is not necessary now to mention. In a variety of these State companies, ex-Army personnel have given not merely satisfaction but have provided the drive, leadership and initiative which was responsible in a great many cases for the success of the undertakings. If in the future these positions are to be filled by persons having similar qualifications, they should be, if not made attractive, certainly free from a penalty clause of any kind. If these people are to be induced to apply for these positions and if the skill, experience and training they received in the Army and which has fitted them for many of these positions, are not to be lost by their seeking employment elsewhere, as a number of them could readily do, it is important to ensure that no scheme or arrangement is allowed to operate which will militate against their being so induced.
The pensions earned by such people in State companies and semi-State companies are, as far as I am aware, on a contributory basis. The individual concerned will have paid contributions in respect of his pension. Therefore, it is going too far with the old approach in this matter to allow that abatement to operate. This applies even outside the State or semi-State bodies. It also applies to certain local authority positions because in some of these positions, indeed in a great many, there is involved in some way or other the possibility of a State contribution and there is considerable concern amongst ex-Army personnel to ascertain whether it is proposed simultaneously with the passing of this Bill to amend the particular clauses of the various Defence Force pension schemes because, so far as I am aware, it is possible that there is more than one scheme involved.
There is article 15, I think, of the 1937 scheme and there would certainly be the Statutory Instrument, No. 247, of the Defence Forces Pensions (Amendment) Scheme, 1964. My attention has also been drawn to a further pension scheme, article 20 of the Defence Forces Pensions (Amendment) Scheme 1953, Statutory Instrument No. 259 of 1953. This particular one, apparently, affects an ex-Army pensioner who is in receipt of a service pension and— there cannot be a great many of these cases—a disablement pension as well. He apparently suffers, according to my informant, a reduction equal to half the lesser pension. It seems, therefore, unfair because in the particular case brought to my notice the person concerned filled for many years a position of high rank in the Army and subsequently served in an important position in one of the State bodies. I should be glad, therefore, if the Minister would ensure that if provision is not included in a proposed amending order it will be possible to have it included at a later stage in the Bill because, in the Minister's speech, he said that the Bill accordingly provides that where a public service pensioner is re-employed in any employment other than that from which he retires, even though this employment is in the public service, his pension will not be abated but where he is re-employed in the same service as that from which he retires his pension would continue to be subject to abatement but of a milder kind.
I think it is no harm to mention that I have known cases where ex-Army personnel have been employed either directly or indirectly by the State and they have suffered very considerable loss of emoluments. I know one case, and I am sure there are others, where the person involved has so far suffered the loss of about £500 or £600. In fact, in a number of these cases the effect of the abatement has meant that not merely have these persons themselves not got the benefit of the ninth round but in certain cases they have not got the benefit of the seventh or eighth rounds because at some stage in the seventh round abatement applied with the result that part of the seventh and the whole of the eighth and ninth rounds passed them by.
These are matters which should be remedied. I see no reason why there should be any deviation between one category of State personnel and another. No distinction should be made between people who are civil servants and persons who are in the Garda or the Army so far as abatement arrangements apply.
In addition to these cases there are certain other cases that I should like to bring to the Minister's attention. They concern district court clerks who had many years service but not sufficient to qualify them for maximum pensions. In at least two of the cases that have been brought to my notice they were obliged, because of ill health, to retire earlier than they would have otherwise retired. As the Minister is probably aware the normal retiring age in respect of these cases is 65. Those who had national service and I think even those without it—but most of them had it—provided their health was satisfactory and their work or their capacity to fulfil the duties of their employment was satisfactory, could be continued on a year-to-year basis.
In some cases that year-to year permission was granted on the application of the individuals concerned but in at least two of these cases, and I think in another, the particular individuals became ill and, apparently, if illness exceeds 28 days during the period of the extended year, the doctor responsible, either the doctor assigned to the particular district or the chief medical officer of the Civil Service had a right to examine the person although in both of these cases the person concerned had not been aware either verbally or in writing, prior to the operation of this regulation that illness in excess of 28 days would leave him liable to forced retirement and not entitled to be re-employed.
The position in these cases is that the persons concerned had less than the 40 years' service that would give them the maximum pension. In some cases they had as much as 38 years which only left them a couple of years short. I understand the Minister has power under the Superannuation Acts to give added years. I mention these cases because the particular pension that the individuals enjoy is a low one. I have the figures here and I find that the total pension was originally £29 per month and apparently, subsequently, because of some pensions increase Act it was increased to £31 per month. I should be glad if the Minister would consider these cases and see if it is possible to give them the maximum pension to which they are entitled because I believe there is general recognition that the work they did in many cases, helping in the establishment of the whole district court procedure, involved them in very considerable work of a technical and important kind and they have rendered very satisfactory service to the State.
I should be glad if the Minister would consider those cases in conjunction with the other cases that have been mentioned, the ex-Army personnel. The present position so far as they are concerned is most unsatisfactory and, indeed, unfair and inequitable.
There are certain other aspects of this matter that might be the subject of consideration at this time except that it probably would be outside the scope of the measure. Some pensions fall to be considered because there is an over-riding maximum to which individuals are entitled and although I understand it is not specifically covered by this measure or by any measure for which the Minister has responsibility, it is the subject of a Dáil resolution and it is a matter that he might possibly consider in the near future with a view to having the necessary changes made.
I believe there is a general desire to improve the pension arrangements because of the general dissatisfaction which exists over the abatement provisions and this is a matter that from time to time has been the subject of consideration here. The first abatement was in respect of pensions awarded for military service. In future there will be possibly fewer of these cases and the number will become less because of the deaths of persons already awarded pensions. But the particular position that obtains now in respect of Army personnel is one that should be rectified, not merely in their interests, but in the interests of the State as a whole, not merely because of the peculiar qualifications which they have for subsequent State employment or semi-State employment, but in order to ensure that we attract to the Defence Forces persons of the best quality and of the highest possible calibre. If they feel that if they should secure employment of a State or semi-State character subsequently their pensions will be abated, it may lessen their enthusiasm for and interest in particular positions.
As I said initially, Army personnel retire at a much earlier age than any other category. That is involved in the type of service, and there is no escaping it, but we ought, at any rate, to make it possible for them to secure alternative employment for which their talents and qualifications fit them, without in any way making them suffer as a result. For that reason, I believe that there is a welcome for this measure in so far as it goes but it does not, so far as I understand it, cover a number of categories and, in particular, ex-Army personnel.
If there are any other categories that are not covered, we can consider them also on Committee Stage.