Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Jul 1972

Vol. 262 No. 4

Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1972: Motion of Approval.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves of the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1972, made on the 8th day of June, 1972, by the Minister for Justice with the sanction of the Minister for Finance under Section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925.

I ask the House to approve the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1972, which provides for a minor change in the Garda pensions code. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the order.

This change effects 37 members of the Garda Síochána who are the only members left of those who, on the making of the 1951 Garda Síochána Pensions Order, opted to retain their old pension conditions. This was the order which introduced the concept of retirement gratuities into the Garda superannuation system. It was applied on a voluntary basis to those serving at the time. They had the choice of remaining on their old pension conditions—that is a pension equalling two-thirds of pay for men with full service—or of accepting the new conditions under which they would get a pension equalling half pay plus a retirement gratuity equal to one and a half times annual pay. Some of those who retained their old pensions conditions later regretted their decision and it has now been agreed to give those still serving a further opportunity to opt for the new conditions. This is the purpose of the present order. The terms of it have been agreed with the Garda Representative Body.

I commend the order for the approval of the House.

Mr. L'Estrange

I welcome this Bill.

Mr. O'Malley

What Bill?

Mr. L'Estrange

The order. We, on this side of the House, think those people are certainly deserving of and entitled to the best. They helped to build up this State in a very dangerous time. The Minister asks "What Bill?" We on this side of the House have always stood behind the Garda Síochána and will continue to stand behind them. In difficult days they helped to build up this country when lawless elements, including members of the Minister's own party, were trying to bring down this country. The Minister need not try to jibe at people on this side of the House because, when it comes to law and order, we on this side of the House will uphold the laws of this country. From the foundation of the State we stood behind those people who helped to build up this country in dark and evil days.

An Ceann Comhairle

This, of course, is a pensions order. It does not open up a discussion on the Garda Síochána.

Mr. L'Estrange

I know, but it might be no harm if they were given the support of the Government, as was given to them in the early days of the foundation of this State. If the Government did this we might not be drifting into the chaos and the anarchy that unfortunately we are drifting into today.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have a debate on the Garda administration on this motion which deals with pensions.

Mr. L'Estrange

We will have further anarchy unless the Government stand behind the Garda.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will get another opportunity to discuss this matter.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister tries to be smart I will not let him get away with it.

Mr. O'Malley

I have no intention of being smart at all. I pointed out, as a matter of courtesy to the Deputy——

Mr. L'Estrange

I was asked at short notice to speak on this matter. I should have explained that our spokesman is away in Strasbourg and Deputy Ryan, who was to speak on this, is at another meeting. I want to say that it might be no harm if the Taoiseach now went on radio, as he did a few years ago when he said that he would use the full force of the Garda and the Army to put down the farmers, and say now that he would use the full force of the Army and the Garda to put down the anarchists in our midst today. We welcome this motion and anything that is being done for those people because they are getting nothing more than they deserve.

Mr. Tully

Like everybody in this House this party welcome the order which is being made. However, there are one or two matters I should like to refer to. It seems a little harsh when an Order like this is being made that some people, who through no fault of their own had left the service, are left out of the order. The Minister may not agree with me, but, on reflection I think he will agree that it seems fair, if an order is being introduced now, to compensate those who because of their age were able to remain in the service at this stage and that those who did not avail of the previous opportunity should now be allowed to come in. It is rather unfair on those who because of their age had to go out before this time and are not being allowed to take advantage of what is in the motion. the number cannot be very big and I suggest to the Minister that he might possibly have another look at this and attempt in some way to try to deal with those people who because of what has happened are not able to avail of it. In fairness to those people they should get an opportunity of availing of the terms of this order.

I am sure there are a number of widows of such people who, because they will be covered by a pension scheme, would be entitled to certain payments which cannot be paid to them because they did not opt in or rather because they opted out at that particular time. I may not have explained this as well as it should have been explained but I think the Minister will take the point that, whatever number of those people there are, an effort should be made to try to give them the benefit of what is being done now.

I mentioned this particularly because of the fact that in a particular job which my trade union organises something like this happened. Like the Minister, we overlooked at the time that there were people who were missed by a very short period and others who were missed by a longer period and afterwards they had to be brought in. I suggest to the Minister that, as they are a dying race and the number must be small, he would ensure that all of those who opted out who are still alive or whose widows are still alive should be given the benefit of this particular order.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

In reply to Deputy Tully, to the best of my knowledge we have had no application from anyone who retired prior to the date from which this operates, that is, 15th January, 1970. Of course the reason for that is that, if a man were out on pension already, I suppose in 99 cases out of 100 it would suit him better to keep his higher pension—two thirds of pay— rather than opt to go on to half pay and get a gratuity as well. That of course is possibly why we have not had any application for people prior to that date.

Mr. Tully

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but I understand that there are certain people who are adversely affected.

Mr. O'Malley

This order was made by me as a result of a recommendation made by the Conroy Commission. They felt they had to take a particular date and the date they picked was the date of the issuing of their own report. Deputy Tully is not quite correct in saying that through no fault of their own certain people were kept out of the benefits of this order. It was open to them to opt one way or the other. They opted one way and some of them may now feel that they should have opted other way.

Mr. Tully

The Minister must be aware that there are a lot of people in this country who when given a choice take the wrong one.

Mr. O'Malley

The total number who could be affected by this is only 37. I understand that not all of them want to change their opinions but a significant number of them do. It is in fact being done at their request. In relation to Deputy L'Estrange's record, all I can say is that it was put on in such a hurry that a 45 record was put on at 33? by mistake.

Question put and agreed to.