A Chathaoirligh, I think that this Bill ought to be supported, but I do not think the Minister has given what is, perhaps, the most cogent reason for the Bill itself. The first Military Service Pensions Act, in 1924, prescribed that pensioners who had salaries or remuneration out of public funds—that is to say, as the Minister has indicated, who had posts under the Government or under a local body— should have certain abatements of their pensions. Now, there were a number of reasons for that, and they were sound reasons; but very shortly after that Act was passed it became clear that, in spite of the soundness of the reasons, there were in fact certain inequities. For example, at that particular moment it was thought that Government employment was within a very narrow range, since Government or public employment was thought to be, and technically was, and still technically remains, employment under Government bodies, but the very next year the Shannon scheme came along and the Electricity Supply Board was formed. I discovered, as I was interested in the matter—not for myself, of course—that a person employed by the Electricity Supply Board was not held to be in receipt of public funds and would therefore get his pension in full if he were entitled to one. This immediately resulted, I remember very well, in a feeling that it was very inequitable. For instance, the Dublin Corporation electricity staff was taken over by the Electricity Supply Board, and members of that staff, whose pensions had been subject to abatement formerly, now found that their full pensions became payable. A person in receipt of a similar pension employed in the Dublin Corporation, in, say, the housing department, had his pension abated, while the other pensioner, who had gone to the Electricity Supply Board, had no abatement of his pension. Apart from the Electricity Supply Board, a number of other bodies came along which were, in fact, Government-controlled, such as the Industrial Credit Corporation, the Agricultural Credit Corporation and, subsequently, the Tourist Development Board, the Turf Development Board, and the sugar company, which came along just immediately after the Electricity Supply Board. Now you have Córas Iompair Éireann, another Government-controlled body, and which is in charge of the whole transport system of the country.
Pensioners employed under all these bodies get their pensions in full, but those employed in direct Government services do not. That, I think, is the best argument for the Bill: that it did not work out equitably; that those employed under Government-controlled bodies, which afforded a very considerable amount of employment, could get their pensions in full, whereas those actually in Government services or in the service of the Dublin Corporation or a similar body, had to suffer an abatement.
For that reason, the Bill is welcome, and I think that the argument is altogether in favour of abolishing the abatement altogether at this particular stage. The amount concerned is a comparatively small one, and the charge is one which, in the nature of things, is a decreasing charge, because the men concerned are now over 50— a considerable number of them over 60—and therefore the amount payable will decrease every year. However, I take it that the Minister has failed to make any impression on the Department of Finance in the matter, and I suppose the thing will have to stand as it is, but it will still work out very inequitably in the case of men with incomes over £500. Officers coming out of the Army at the present moment will get a comparatively small pension. A great number of them will now be coming out and be coming out together owing to the fact that they joined the Army in 1913. They will be coming out together, and with a comparatively small pension. If a man coming out is fortunate enough to get a job in the railway or in any of these other semi-Government or Government-controlled bodies such as the Tourist Board, the sugar company, and so on, he will get his full pension; but a man who gets employment in the Board of Works—an engineer, for example—will have an abatement of his pension. For these reasons it is really not an equitable scheme, but the Minister has evidently failed to impress the Department of Finance, and I suppose we shall have to be thankful for what is here.
Another point that is not dealt with here at all—and I suppose that the Second Stage is the only stage of the Bill in which we can make an allusion to it—is concerned with those people in receipt of small pensions who find themselves in bad circumstances, and who also find that the fact that they have a pension means a decrease in the amount they can get under the Unemployment Assistance Act, the Old Age Pensions Act, and similar Acts. That, I think, is very unfortunate, because the total amount they can get, particularly in the case of the old age pensioner, can only be 15/-. If he has a pension of less than 10/-, it means that he gets an old age pension of 6/- or 7/- instead of 10/-. I think that that is wrong. Steps should also be taken to see that the possession of a small military pension of this kind would not disqualify a man in the case of ordinary reliefs such as the old age pension. Perhaps the Minister will say that what I am asking for now is a much wider problem, but I think that, perhaps, the whole question of incomes and means tests, particularly in connection with old age pensions, might be dealt with.
In the meantime, however, the Bill itself is good so far as it goes, and it will remedy a certain amount of the inequity that has taken place since 1925, which arose with the accumulation of various Government-controlled bodies. Even though the Bill does not go the whole way, I think it is to be welcomed. The Minister, of course, spoke in the Dáil about the extraordinary situation in which officers and men in the Army, who have a pension under the 1934 Act, suffer no abatement of their pensions, whereas people who come under the 1924 Act do. I do not know how that arose, but it seems to be very unjust. However, there it is. This, of course, is a Money Bill, and since the Minister told the Dáil that he had done all he could to get the best out of the Department of Finance, I suppose we must be satisfied. So far as I personally am concerned in regard to this Bill, I am satisfied that it should be supported.
