Vol. 1 No. 32
The first business in the Orders of the Day is the Land Law (Commission) Bill, 1923. The Minister for Defence is, however, present and I understand he has an important engagement and that he would like to have the Army Pensions Bill taken on first unless there is some objection on the part of the Seanad. I propose to take the Report Stage of the Army Pensions Bill now.
Motion made and question proposed: "That the Bill be now considered on Report."
There are obviously two clerical errors in the Second Schedule, and if I would be in order I would move the deletion of the word "any" in paragraph 6.
Does any member wish to speak or move any amendment to any clause before we deal with the amendment Senator McLoughlin wishes to move to the Schedule?
I did not put down formal notice, but I would like to draw the attention of the Seanad to two small recommendations that they inserted in the Bill last week. It seems to me that we would be unwise in sending these two verbal recommendations to the Dáil when we have no recommendations of substance. They are purely verbal, and I think the Senator who moved them thought it was not quite consistent to sometimes speak of the word Minister, and sometimes speak of the Minister for Defence. I think it would be a mistake for the Seanad to send verbal recommendations, and I beg to move that we do not agree with the Committee in the two recommendations they made. I was in the Chair when they were moved, and at the time it was not possible to know whether there might be other recommendations of substance. Under the circumstances I hope we will not send the Bill back to the Dáil and delay its passage for a matter of that kind.
This is a certified Money Bill, and any changes we suggest can only take the form of recommendations.
If the recommendations would delay the Bill I would ask the Seanad not to insist on them. They are merely recommendations to the Dáil to accept or reject. Unless the Minister objects to the amendments I would be inclined to let it go.
The suggestion is that the amendments are really only verbal, and that while they might improve the actual language, they are not pertinent or vital to the Bill, and are not worth while putting forward if the result would be to delay the passing of the measure.
As I said, they are only recommendations to the Dáil which is in a position of putting them in or leaving them out, so that they will not in any way affect the passing of the Bill.
If the Dáil dissented from our recommendations the Bill would have to come back.
I do not think so.
The Seanad would then have to make up its mind as to what action it would take.
A recommendation is different to an amendment.
If my point of view is not shared I will not press the matter. At the same time it does seem to me infra dig to send a Money Bill, which we cannot touch, back with two small recommendations.
If I may say so, there is nothing in the amendments which will not be accepted. I do not know what delay may arise, but I regret that I was not present when the Bill was discussed in Committee.
I understand from the Minister that he does not object to the change of words.
It is simply a matter of changing "Minister for Defence"—
And making it "Minister."
The alteration I suggest is in connection with allowances to Dependants of officers in paragraph 6.
On the last occasion I asked the question about the First Schedule——
Would you repeat it now as the Minister is here?
It refers to the scale on which these allowances are granted, and as to how they compare with those granted to the wounded and other pensioners of the British Army. The Minister who was here the last day gave us some information, but he was not in a position to answer my question. I thought that it was better, before the Seanad proceeded to discuss amendments, to have some information on the subject. I understand that the Minister for Defence is willing to give us some information.
Generally speaking, our circumstances were radically different from those which had to be dealt with in the British Army—especially as regards the period of training and the period in which men were engaged on Army work. The general training and position of our men were more or less on a level throughout the country, and the differences in rank and in responsibility were not as material with us as in, say, the British Army. For that reason we considered it advisable simply to strike a flat rate for all officers and, incidentally, a flat rate for all men. We thought it the most suitable and systematic way of dealing with the matter from the point of view of fairness to the general individual, and also for administrative purposes. The working out of these rates was dealt with by a Government Committee set up to deal with all pay matters connected with the Army. We took as our base line the total disability payment that would be made to officers or men, and we based it to a certain extent on the British figure. In the British Royal Warrant for 1922 the rates for total disablement are given as follows:—Captain or Subaltern, £150; Major, £200; Lieutenant-Colonel, £250; and higher rank, £300, for officers holding temporary commissions. We have taken in our Schedule the figure of £200 per annum as the wound pension payable to officers totally disabled, as a fair one. In the matter of men, we took the figure for total disablement as 42/- per week. This compares with the figures in the British case, which are:— Private, 40/-; Corporal, 43/4; and Sergeant, 46/8. The gratuities payable to widows were assessed from the base line of the amount payable in respect of officers totally disabled. The same applies with regard to the men. In the provisions for the education of youths, under the age of 18, and daughters under the age of 21, we followed to a close extent the amount paid in similar cases according to the British Warrant.
We are much indebted to the Minister for giving us this information. Although this is a Money Bill I think it is well to know that the Dáil and the Oireachtas as a whole are not burdening our Free State with pensions on a scale larger than that which was considered just in the Great War for those who were injured. The information which we have got shows that the whole matter has been carefully thought out, both as regards the pensioners themselves and the State, and justice seems to have been done. We are much obliged to the Minister for Defence for his information.
I find here under "Disablement" that Class 2 is graded at a higher pension than Class 3. In Class 2 the injury would be the loss of an arm and one eye (37s. 9d.), and in Class 3 the loss of both feet (33s. 7d.). It is very difficult for one to decide whether a man who loses an arm and one eye is in a worse position for earning a livelihood than the man who loses both feet. I suggest to the Minister that Class 3 ought to be moved up to Class 2. I think that a man who loses both legs, unless he is in a skilled trade like that of a tailor, would be in a poor position to earn anything in the way of a livelihood. The man who loses one arm and one eye might possibly be useful and he certainly would be more useful than a man who loses both his feet. I think it rather a pity that such a man should be put lower down the scale than the man who loses one arm and one eye.
In general, with regard to the Schedule, it is based on the experience that came from the whole crop of casualties in the European war, and it has been considered very carefully by our Medical Staff. I do not think we ought to be asked to depart from it in any particular point or principle. We could not hope to bring to bear on it more consideration than that already given. We certainly do not hope that we will have in this country the material for working out a Schedule of this kind which was provided by the European war. I do not think that we could accept the suggestion of Senator O'Dea. The loss of both feet means the loss of both feet from the ankle.
I wish to correct what is obviously a clerical error in the second schedule in Section 6, "No allowance shall be payable under any Section in any case in which any allowance is payable under any of the foregoing Sections." The "any section" should read obviously "this section." I beg to delete the word "any" and substitute the word "this."
I beg to second.
In the third Schedule paragraph 6 should read "In section 4 of this Schedule. I beg to move the deletion of ‘3' and substitution of ‘4.'"
I beg to second.
The motion now is: "That the Bill as considered on report be taken up for final consideration."
Agreed.
The motion is: "That this Bill do now pass."
Agreed.
