Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1956

Vol. 46 No. 14

Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1956—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I am still, I am afraid, in a very critical frame of mind with regard to this section, which is the main section of the Bill, and which sets out the rates of pension increase to be given to the various beneficiaries. It ranges from 15 per cent. down to 6 per cent. I made the point on the Second Stage that to give 15 per cent., which is the maximum amount given to a pensioner, in order to enable him to cope with a 34 per cent.—at the very least—rise in the cost of living in less than ten years, is to give in a very niggardly manner. On the other hand, to give 6 per cent. at the top of the scale is virtually not to give at all—it is an increase of only 9/8 a week.

I asked the Minister on the last occasion—and perhaps he may be prepared to deal with the point on this section—how many people would be covered by the first four clauses here (a), (b), (c) and (d), that is to say, how many of these 6,800 pensioners are at the moment getting pensions of less than £200 a year. I have no knowledge of that at all, and I have no way of guessing how many there may be, but I think it is a matter of interest to us to know how many of those pensioners, who are now to get a very small increase, are in fact existing on pensions of less than £200 a year. Be it noted that already some of them are existing on pensions of less than £100 a year. I find it very hard to satisfy myself that we are doing what we ought to do in relation to this matter by giving those with less than £100 a year a 15 per cent. increase and giving the others an even lower increase.

I should like to ask the Minister also what proportion of the total pension bill is represented by this increase. This section increases the amount expended for pensions by a total of something like £140,000 a year, as we were told by the Minister. I should like to know what proportion that £140,000 is of the total pensions bill; in other words, how much per cent. is being added to that bill by this additional £140,000?

I do not want to repeat what I said on the Second Stage about the cost-of-living figures. I should like to point out that many of these pensions referred to in this section, and referred to in some detail in the seven different categories, were calculated, naturally, upon the salaries and the years of service of the pensioners. If these salaries, upon which such calculations were based, relate to ten years ago, they relate to a period when, say, £500 a year would have been not a bad pension. In other words, these pensions were calculated upon salaries which in themselves related to a cost of living much lower than it is to-day. On behalf of those civil servants and others in a similar type of employment, who remained in service even for a few years after 1947, adjustments were made both in salaries and in the basis on which pensions were computed. I think I am right in saying that, in relation to teachers and departmental Inspectors, there was a change in the method of calculating their years of service. I understand that early years of service spent in teaching are now counted in the calculation of an inspector's pension. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong in that, but, as I understand it, that is a recent concession and has resulted in such recently retired servants getting considerably bigger pensions and gratuities than did their counterparts of a mere eight or nine years ago.

I do not at all suggest that these more recent pensioners have in any sense received lavish pensions or gratuities, but I do suggest that an injustice is being done when men in the same income and service group, pensionable servants of the State, are treated as if they had given entirely different service and done an entirely different level of work in the course of their actual employment. I shall give one example. Take the case of a divisional inspector with 43 years' service, 33 years as an inspector and ten years as a teacher. If he retired in December, 1946, he got a gratuity of £1,270 and a pension of £577. A similar officer, doing the same kind of work in the same category, with the same years of service—33 years as an inspector, ten years as a teacher—retiring after 15th January, 1951, gets not £1,270 as a gratuity but £2,051 and not £577 as a pension but £715. As I understand it, he too will be compensated under this Bill. Under Section 2 he will get an increased pension rate. One can see that the civil servant who retired earlier is under a severe disability by reason of the fact that (a) his rate of pension is lower and (b) his gratuity was calculated upon a different basis from that adopted in the case of the man who retired only five years later.

It is worth while comparing what the consolidated maximum salary was for such men. In 1946 it was £1,155; in November, 1948, it was £1,240; in January, 1951, when it was revised, it became £1,300 and the present scale, including the latest increase, makes it £1,431. The present pensioner has his pension based upon those new salary rates and the pensioner who retired since 1951 also has his pension based upon those rates, and will get, in addition, all these other concessions, such as they are, as laid down in Section 2, whereas the man who retired only a few years earlier gets no recognition under this section or in any other part of this Bill.

There are two other points I should like to make. First, it must be presumed in the nature of things now— we previously discussed at length the question of a widow's pension—that such a pensioner must be making some provision from his pension for his wife should she become a widow. I ask the Seanad to consider what kind of provision such a man is able to make out of a pension of £500 a year or out of a pension, as is the case of those in the first four of these seven clauses, of less than £200 a year. In considering the amount of money we are granting under this section, should we not bear in mind that we ought to be enabling these people to put aside adequate provision for their wives, should these pensioners predecease their wives?

The second point is that the Minister for Finance is rightly recognised in the Dáil, and here, as a person who faces facts fairly coldly. He presents them objectively. He was complimented in the Dáil the other day on the way in which he faced the fact in relation to the amount of money available for housing. I should like to ask him now to place himself for a moment in the position of a person trying to live on a pension of 35/- a week, a retired servant of the State. I should like him, as coldly as he can, to face the fact of a pensioner, perhaps a married pensioner whose wife is still living, trying to face the world on a pension of even £3 per week, to take the third of these categories here. I would ask him whether he really thinks that a pensioner receiving £150 a year for himself and his wife, even with the 12 per cent. increase envisaged in paragraph (c), will be able to face the cold facts of the modern cost of living when, if we face those facts coldly here, we recognise that even since 1947 there has been an increase in the cost of living not of 12 per cent. but of 34 per cent.

I would urge upon the Minister therefore, that, even at this late hour, he should modify the provisions of this section in order to give more generous consideration to those retired servants of the State who have got no effective weapon, except the weapon of persuasion, with which to enforce their claim. We recognise that as far as a Money Bill is concerned we are quite powerless in this House. If we wanted to give more money to such pensioners, it would have no effect, even should we pass an amendment asking that more money be made available under this section, because such an amendment would in itself be out of order under our Standing Orders and could not therefore even be proposed and discussed, much less passed. In view of that, I am putting the view, with which I hope many Senators will agree, and I appeal to the Minister to recognise, that even with all the austerity that is talked about and is necessary in any field, we are not doing enough for these pensioners in giving them from 6 to 15 per cent. increases with such a time-lag, and based upon pensions which, in turn, were based upon salaries which were considerably below the present salaries related to present pension rights.

I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that members of the Seanad are powerless to do anything in connection with this section. This, as he said, is the operative section, the most important section in the Bill, because it sets out the amount of the pensions that have to be taken into account and the percentage of the increase to be given to the pensioners in each category.

I do not want to go over the ground we traversed on the Second Reading, but I mentioned, I remember, a few categories on the last occasion and I must confess I expected to get a little more information from the Minister than he gave. I referred on that occasion to the position of the Old I.R.A. who are in receipt of military service pensions and also those in receipt of disability pensions and, of course, those in receipt of special allowances. I gave it as my opinion that the increase given to them a few years ago did not measure up to the increases being given now to the persons covered by this Bill. I was waiting to hear the Minister's views on that, but I do not think he referred to it when he replied to the debate, and I would therefore ask him now to deal with the matter and let us know how the members of the Old I.R.A., those in receipt of military service pensions, disability pensions or special allowances, stand in comparison with the pensioners covered by this section.

The vast majority of these people would be covered by paragraph (a) where the amount of the pension does not exceed £100 a year. Fifteen per cent. is the percentage that is being given here, so that it will be of great help to us if the Minister lets us know the comparison there is between the increase that was given a few years ago to the members of the Old I.R.A. and the increases that are being given now.

Also, on the occasion of the Second Reading, I mentioned the members of the Second Dáil who were taken into the Civil Service. I do not know if I am entirely in order in mentioning this——

The Senator surely does know.

——but at the same time, I must say that the Minister, in his reply, did not give us any view on that matter. It is because of that that I would refer to it now briefly and ask him whether in the meantime he has considered the case of these people? I will leave it at that.

On the previous occasion also I mentioned a certain small section of the Irish Civil Service who, because of an ancient British arrangement, are not getting the full amount of the pension they are entitled to. That is all I have to say on this section.

I want to say briefly that I think it is entirely wrong that when a concession is given to civil servants who are still acting, or to teachers in the service, in the matter of retiring gratuities or pensions, that concession should not be extended to those who have already retired. We have the instance just quoted and dealt with so fully by Senator Sheehy Skeffington of the case of the inspectors who did not until quite recently get credit for service given as teachers under the same Minister and the same Department, but we have a more glaring instance in the case of the teachers who retired before 1st January, 1950, and who did not get any credit in the matter of retiring gratuities for service given before that time.

It has been suggested, and I think quite improperly, that there was no precedent for giving credit for such service to those who have already retired, but that is, as I say, wrong. To my own knowledge and in my own experience, this was given by the British Government here and it has been given by the Northern Government to teachers and civil servants similarly situated to those about whom we are talking. It is a strange and a rather pitiful thing, in a way, that the teachers and civil servants who for many years agitated to have these concessions given are the people who now see them given to those who are still in the service, while they are denied to themselves.

I need not go into the arguments dealt with so fully by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, but I support them and ask the Minister to give them his favourable consideration.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington asked me on the Second Stage for certain information and I undertook to have it available for him to-day. The figures are approximately as follows: Under £100 a year, 1,565; from £100 to £125, 530; from £125 to £150, 515; from £150 to £200, 1,710. That makes a total, under £200 a year, of 4,320. From £200 to £300 a year, 1,730; from £300 to £450 a year, 365; and over £450, 345. That makes a total, in the over £200 a year class, of 2,440, making altogether 6,760. The Senator will remember that the other day, on an all round basis, I put the number at 6,800. So much for the specific information.

I think members of the House will appreciate the facts about this section. I announced in my Budget statement this year that I was setting aside for the purpose of increases of pensions amounts that would mean £180,000 in a full year. This Bill will account for £140,000 of that. The other £40,000 will be dealt with otherwise than by the specific measure now before the House.

I made it quite clear in my Budget statement that whatever about the principles of superannuation, that was the most I could afford. The principles of superannuation to which I referred are, of course, covered by the Superannuation Acts; they are based on the accepted view that it is the level of salary at the specific date of retirement that covers the amount of the pension, that it is only in exceptional circumstances such as we have here that that principle could be varied.

Nobody would like more than I would to be able to come to the Dáil at the time of the Budget and give greater benefits all round. We must, however, appreciate that whatever benefits are given in the shape of additional pensions have also a counterbalance—inasmuch as they have to be paid for. I do not remember that, when my Budgetary proposals were before the other House, or this House in the form of the Finance Bill, any member suggested that I should add additional taxation for the purpose of increasing, among other things, the provisions of this Bill.

That is just the plain fact of the matter. We have got to face the situation that, if additional increases are given, they can be paid for only by additional taxation. I think that in all the circumstances of the difficulties there were, the Government met those difficulties in a fair and open manner through the provisions of this Bill. I am not going to suggest for one minute that the beneficiaries themselves would not have liked, would not have wished that the increases were greater, but Section 2 of this Bill is framed on the Budgetary announcement of the amount of money that would be available, which announcement was subsequently confirmed by the Dáil, and later by this House, in the Finance Bill. All we can do in relation to Section 2 is to distribute that amount.

With respect, I would suggest therefore that the only relevant consideration in the examination of that section is to see whether members of the House might wish that something would be taken from one of the subclasses in the Bill and transferred to another subclass. The total amount that can be made available has already been fixed and determined. Let me add that, in the circumstances of the revenue as it is at the present time, there is no prospect whatever of my being able to amend that decision during the current financial year.

Senator Kissane mentioned the question of military service pensions and certain matters analogous to them. They would not be relevant to this Bill; it would not be under a Bill such as this that they would be dealt with and, with all respect to the Chair, therefore, I would refrain from discussing something that would not be in order. Senator O'Connell mentioned the position in relation to the gratuity for certain pre-1950 pensioned teachers. There is always the situation that when you improve conditions for any class, whether in relation to pensions, to gratuities or to tax concessions about which we will be hearing in this House next week, there is always the dividing line at which you have to start.

If one takes the view that in relation to any concessions you must not merely make that concession in relation to the future but retrospectively, then virtually you are saying that there can be no concession along any line because it would be impossible to make concessions completely retrospectively from the angle from which they are made—such as the gratuities mentioned by Senator O'Connell and the tax concessions we shall be discussing next week. This section divides, in my view, in a fair way the amount that was made available under the Budget. While I regret that that amount was not more, I want to be quite honest with the Seanad when I make it clear that in present circumstances it could not be more.

The Minister has repeated with emphasis what he said during the debate on the Second Reading—that the rate of pension had to be directly related to the salary which the person concerned received on the last day of his working career. May I remind him that, in all awards of pensions to civil servants from 1923 to 1946, there was a proviso that if the cost of living fell, the pensions would be reduced? Now, it seems rather hard on civil servants if, from 1923 to 1946 they were going to lose in the value of their pensions if the cost of living fell, but now as the Minister tells us, if the cost of living rises, it can be taken into account only in very exceptional circumstances.

It seems unreasonable that a man should lose if the cost of living falls and not be granted the corresponding adjustment that if the cost of living rises, he should gain. We know that unfortunately we are dealing at the moment with a time when the cost of living is soaring catastrophically. I suggest that the machinery we have used up to the present is quite inadequate to deal with it. The principles on which all Ministers for Finance have been going up to the present in matters of this kind are quite out of date.

The Minister made it clear that in the present financial situation of the country, he cannot make any changes in the near future. However, I should like to remind him on this particular point that up to 1946 a civil servant could lose, if the cost of living fell, and suggest to him that when circumstances in the country are easier—and if he, as many of us hope, continues to control the finances of the State— he will remember the time has come when civil servants should be allowed to gain as the cost of living rises. It seems to me to be only justice.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me these figures of the numbers of pensioners. We have got seven different classes in this section. I notice that the numbers of those with pensions less than £200 a year is 4,320. I feel that for a pensioner with less than £200 a year to be told he could qualify for another 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. is grossly unsatisfactory. I should have liked the Minister to face the facts and to give us some idea of how the man with a pension of less than £100 a year, given a 15 per cent. addition, can face the exigencies of the present cost-of-living situation.

What kind of standard of living does the Minister envisage for such a retired servant of the State? There was one other figure for which I asked the Minister. I did not ask for it the last time, but I asked for it this time. It would be a significant and relevant figure, that is, what percentage of the total pensions bill is represented by this increase of £140,000?

Senator Stanford has referred to the principle invoked by the Minister that in all superannuation schemes there is a linking of the pension with the final salary. Senator Stanford has demonstrated that this is not in fact always the case. Departure from it sometimes goes against the civil servant. The Minister himself said that this is a principle that is always applied, except in "exceptional circumstances as here," which seems to me to defeat that argument in relation to this Bill. If these are exceptional circumstances which are being met by this Bill, let us meet them more adequately and not fall back upon the principle in relation to which we say: "This Bill is, in fact, an exception."

The Minister said, and, I think, with justification, that if you are going to give out more money under this section, we must suggest where it will come from. I had not the privilege of being present when the Finance Bill was being discussed in this House last summer, but, the year before that, I suggested quite specifically that, even without increased taxation, it might be justifiable for such an expenditure as this and that there were Estimates which could be cut, without loss to the State——

We are not going into that now under this Bill.

I was endeavouring to answer the Minister's question.

The Minister pointed out that when the Finance Bill was going through this House, nobody suggested increasing the rates of taxation.

I accept that. I realise it would be irrelevant for me to go into any detail. I will leave it at that, except to make the suggestion that the money could be found, not merely, as the Minister says, by increased taxation, but by reduced expenditure; in other words, there is another alternative.

The Minister tells us that the bottom of the barrel has been scraped, so to speak, and that in existing circumstances the money is not there. I understand we will be asked fairly soon to pass a Bill to give £2,000,000 in grants to new industrialists.

The Senator will have an opportunity of expressing his view on that Bill when it comes before this House. It is not before us yet.

I have a feeling that when the Minister tells me the money cannot be found, it might be considered relevant for me to ask him where he is finding not merely £140,000 but an extra £2,000,000. I feel there is a certain relevance in that.

I come now, however, to what Senator O'Connell said, and, I think, said well. I cited only one example, and I made it clear that it concerned just one sample case, the case of a man who retired less than ten years ago and who is now at a serious disadvantage. Senator O'Connell, however, mentioned other examples. He enunciated a principle which I think we should all accept here, namely, that any concessions in salary rates ought proportionately to be made available to civil servants who are out already on pension. I am convinced, with Senator O'Connell, that there are quite a number of Government Senators who are in favour of a more generously-framed Section 2 to this Bill. I feel they are losing an opportunity if they do not speak in this debate, and use their greater influence with the Government than mine or that of those who are not on the Government side of the House, in order to persuade the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, to be not just a little more generous but quite considerably more generous.

I spent ten years of my life contending with Ministers for Finance about various matters, including staff. Naturally, one feels that the Minister for Finance is a suitable target for everybody. At the same time, my experience of administration did give me some sympathy with the Minister for Finance, whatever Party he belonged to. This debate is an example of that. The Minister fixed a certain sum of money in the Budget for relieving this matter of civil servants' pensions. Senator Stanford mentioned that before 1946 there was a particular regulation. I think I am right in saying that up to 1946 civil servants were paid on a basic salary, plus a cost-of-living bonus.

In point of fact, the super-cut affected that very considerably, I understand.

I will come to the super-cut in a moment. Since then, salaries have been consolidated. The Minister stated a particular principle which the Department of Finance, naturally, wants to claim, namely, that pension should be calculated on salaries at the moment the pensioner goes out. In this section—which concerns civil servants, by the way, and neither the Old I.R.A. nor teachers —the Minister goes a small way beyond that principle in order to make a concession to certain people who are out on pension and whom the cost of living is oppressing. The result of that is that he is being urged to make more and more concessions, that he is being pushed further and further.

I recognise that there is nothing easier than to say here that the Minister ought to spend more money. That is a very popular thing to do. I know a number of these people and, in particular, persons who have been subject to the super-cut, which was mentioned by Senator Stanford, who are on a pension of less than £600 a year and are getting something like £34, which is not a very big sum.

My experience with the Ministers for Finance and Governments is that when they make any concession it should be welcomed. One of the reasons why I think Ministers stand by principles and do not make concessions is that, when they make any concession at all, everybody wants them to go further and further.

I think the Minister's view is that this section deals with one particular part of a very big problem. If the Minister is going to be very much more generous, he will be pushed further and further into expenditure. If he were to double the £140,000 in a full year, I think it would still not satisfy the various people who want various classes dealt with. The unfortunate part of it is that he cannot do everything that everybody wants.

I suggest that the assertion of various principles does not help you. If any of the Senators concerned were dealing with the problem with which the Minister is dealing, I do not think they would make as good a hand of it.

I am afraid I cannot quite follow Senator Hayes's last objection. He said that the enunciation of certain principles would be no good in this debate. Surely that is what we are here for—to consider the principle at the back of any particular Bill? It seems to me that it is a mere matter of equity that people who have been retired for some considerable time now and find themselves living on a mere pittance, in view of the decreased value of the £, should be treated on a different basis from that of people retiring to-day or to-morrow.

The Minister said nobody suggested this matter on the Finance Bill. I hope he will be prepared to consider the suggestion next year that there should be increased taxation in order to do justice to this particular group of the community because I, for one, would suggest it. Would the Minister consider—drastic as it is, since we are dealing with just that Section 2 and he says there is no more money—a reduction in each case of a percentage amount sufficient to ensure the inclusion of the retired people whose case has now been raised by so many Senators? It would be drastic but it would cause such an outcry that something would have to be done for all of them next year.

I want to deal with a point raised by Senator Hayes. I think that, in this, I can speak for Senators Sheehy Skeffington, Kissane and O'Connell. We are not asking this as a result of the Minister making a concession. That is what Senator Hayes said. We are asking for it as a matter of mere justice.

Surely, Sir, if the Minister had not made concessions, we would not be discussing Section 2 at all? I am not attributing bad motives to Senator Stanford, but it is the truth that if the Minister was not giving something to these people, nobody would be in a position to discuss it because the Bill would not be here.

It is generally accepted in the cases that are referred to here that the complaint in regard to the principle to which the Minister has referred is that the pensions, or gratuities, should not be fixed on the salary which they had at the time. The complaint is that they did not get credit for service already given. I mention that in view of the principle to which the Minister has referred.

I was rather hoping that the Minister might be prepared to answer my question of the percentage of the total pensions bill represented by the present £140,000.

I could not do that without notice.

Would the Minister not be prepared to hazard a guess?

I do not like guesses. I prefer to keep to facts.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

The House will remember that this is the section which includes the reference to the super-cut. I do not want to delay the House for any length at the moment, but I do think that this is a matter which deserves more emphasis. It concerns members of the Civil Service and we as a House would, I am sure, like to record our appreciation of the help which the Civil Service constantly gives us in our work. This particular matter concerns a very small number of ex-civil servants, about 150 in all, and the average age, I am told, of these people is about 75. They were men who served the State very valuably from 1922 onwards. In fact, as I said in the Second Reading debate, this country owes an immense amount to those civil servants who either remained in Ireland, or came over from England to Ireland, to help the Free State in its infancy. These 150 men, with an average age of 75 years, are suffering under a legitimate grievance, and I do not think that we can get away from that.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington has quoted an example of a grievance, a difference of pension, in connection with another section of the Bill. Let me very briefly give an example of the super-cut's effect on one of these deserving men. A civil servant who retired in 1944, at the age of 65, with the rank of assistant secretary, would be on a scale of £850 to £1,000 a year, plus bonus. Under the 1947 Superannuation Act, which fixed a ceiling of £270 for the former figure of £185, he would be receiving a pension of £766 a year. Under Section 3, sub-section (4) of the present Bill he will receive a pension of £855 a year, the pension he would have been awarded in 1944, if there had been no super-cut at that time and no stabilisation of the bonus. In other words, he is getting now the pension he should have got in 1944.

Compare him with a man who holds a similar post at the present moment. He will receive as soon as he retires, a pension of £1,027, that is, £172 a year more. That is simply because the salary of the post has been adjusted by reference to the continuing depreciation of currency between 1944 and the present time, whereas there was no adjustment in the pension. As we know, the cost of living in 1944 was approximately 270. It is now 425.

I think this small group of men has a legitimate grievance. It would cost approximately £4,000 to put it right. The Minister has said very emphatically that he is not going to make provision for any increase in pensions under the new Budget. I believe there is a phrase "smuggling things" into the Budget. It is a mysterious term which I do not fully understand, but if the Minister understands it fully I hope he will exercise all his ingenuity towards smuggling in this £4,000.

I always thought the Minister for Finance was anti-smuggling.

Not in the Budget. I think it is a slur on the successive Governments and on this House that these men should have been deprived of such a trifling sum, simply as a result of a decision by Lloyd George in 1921. It is an extraordinary political anomaly.

Before I conclude, may I refer to one or two points raised during the Second Reading? Senator Commons went rather astray, I think, in regarding a Civil Service pension as something in the nature of a gift. He rather implied that in his remarks. The fact is that every salary assigned to every person in the Civil Service is substantially scaled down because it is pensionable. Every civil servant pays for his pension during his working years. It would be wrong to accept the suggestion that it is, in any way, a gift.

Secondly, the word "bonus" was misunderstood. It is not a bonus in the generally accepted term. It is merely to compensate for the cost of living. We must not think it is something that is in the nature of a gift— it is nothing of the kind.

May I finally remind the Minister of the main point on the super-cut in the hope that he will legitimately do some smuggling in the next Budget? It concerns the 150 men who have deserved well of this State, with an average age of 75, perhaps 76, and it involves a cost of approximately £4,000. I would appeal to the Minister to remove this slur on the goodwill of the nation. I hope he will do all in his power to put it right.

I should like to support what Senator Stanford has said on the matter of the super-cut. I entirely agree that the pensioners have no rights whatsoever in the matter and that under this Bill nobody has any rights, but that the Minister is making concessions and that nobody has any claim to anything more than what the Minister is offering in the Bill; but I do think that this is a case where the Minister could afford to be a little more generous, without substantially increasing the financial burden of his concession. This small body of people, who are old in years and small in numbers, are suffering from the rise in the cost of living as much as anybody else and it seems to me to be rather hard on them that one of their grievances should have been removed by the Government in 1951 and another, minor grievance, put in its place.

The number of people affected is small. They are, unfortunately, a group which is becoming smaller every year. At the end of a very few years, the problem will not exist any more. The burden on the Exchequer will be very slight; the benefit to the beneficiaries will be very substantial, and the Minister might, for once, depart from his orthodox and austere principles of finance in favour of a small and deserving group of our fellow citizens who are suffering a great deal through no fault of their own, from the rise in the cost of living. As I said, they have no rights in the matter. They come entirely as supplicants of the Minister's generosity and I appeal to the Minister putting through his excellent Bill, not to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.

I rise to support the other Senators who have drawn attention to this matter of the small number of senior civil servants who have a legitimate grievance in connection with this Bill. I mentioned this matter before on the Second Reading and my reason for doing so was that I considered the amount of money involved was very small and the principle very big. As the other Senators have said, these people gave very excellent service to the State in their time. I have had personal experience of the painstaking manner in which they approached the problems that confronted them, and it would be a very good gesture on the part of the Minister if he would reconsider their position.

The Minister has told us that the amount of money involved in the administration of this measure is limited, but I submit that £3,000 or £4,000 would not add a very great burden to the amount that is being made available when it is a question of mere justice. The Minister would do well if he would reconsider it.

I would like to support what other Senators have said on sub-section (4) of Section 3, which concerns the super-cut. I was concerned on the previous sections mainly with the 4,000 odd people who are now on a pension of less than £200 a year, but I feel that, in relation to this sub-section, which deals with those who are somewhat better off in terms of pension, there is, as Senator Stanford and the other Senators have said, a question of common justice and common equity. I would, perhaps, phrase it even more strongly, because I feel many of these men entered into a contract with the State under certain conditions implying certain treatment in relation to their salaries and the cost-of-living bonus, and were cheated out of what was a legitimate clause of their original contract by what is commonly called the super-cut. In those circumstances, for us, even now at this late hour, not to right that wrong completely is to do ourselves an injustice in the eyes of these men and of the country at large.

A new "concession" is given by this sub-section (4) whereby such pensioners are given a "choice" of taking either half the super-cut, I think it is, or 6 per cent. of pension, as mentioned in the previous section. Let us examine in practice what that means.

If you take, say, four basic years, 1940-41, 1941-42, 1946-47 and 1949-50, assuming that in those years the basic salaries were at £600, £700 and £800, and if you compare the result of adding to these men's pensions the super-cut moiety with that of adding 6 per cent. to their pension, you find there is a striking similarity in the alternative figures.

Take the case of a man retiring on pension in the year 1940-41 on the old basic salary of £700. If he accepts the super-cut moiety now offered he gets an extra £26 a year. If he accepts 6 per cent. added to his pension he gets an extra £29 a year. Similarly, a man retiring in 1941-42, having chosen the super-cut moiety, will get an extra £31, whereas if he decides to choose the 6 per cent. of pension he will get an extra £33. In 1946-47 the position is slightly reversed because a man with a basic £700 who chooses the super-cut moiety will get £40 but if he chooses the 6 per cent. of pension he will get £34. Still, the figures are very similar.

I do not want to read out all these figures to the Seanad, but if Senators had the curiosity to make out such a table for themselves and to add, over these four fairly representative years, the sum total of what on the one hand would be represented by the super-cut moiety for such groups of pensioners and, on the other hand, what the 6 per cent. of pension would similarly represent, they would find in relation to the super-cut moiety, adding the figures together from the one example of each case I have mentioned, a total of £398, if these people, collectively as it were, were to choose the super-cut moiety; and if they all chose the 6 per cent. pension there would be a total not of £398 but of £399.

There is, I think, something farcical in that. We have a sub-section here in which, in a very ponderous way, a "considerable concession" is made to those people. We are giving them the "free choice" of whether they will take that super-cut moiety or 6 per cent., and in point of fact it amounts to virtually the same thing. There is hardly a pound of difference in it and I would contend that this sub-section is window-dressing, a pretence that we are meeting these men's just claim by giving them a "choice" which in reality is no choice at all.

I said before in relation to another Bill in this House that if civil servants were not so uniformly polite to Ministers, they might well say in relation to that Bill: "Thank you for nothing." In relation to this what is called "concession" in this sub-section, we are permitting civil servants to choose either (a) the 6 per cent. or (b) the super-cut moiety, but in a very big number of cases the difference is so small that the "choice" is illusory and the civil servants involved might well say: "Thank you, Mr. Minister, for nothing."

I wish Senators, if I might be so bold as to start on a critical note on their utterances, would endeavour, before they rise on these points, to ascertain the facts, particularly Senator Sheehy Skeffington who has just spoken. What are the facts? This is the first time that there has ever been any increase given for pensions in excess of £450 a year. When the 1950 Act was being passed, no pension in excess of £450 per annum was increased. This is the first time that it has ever been done since the war. In relation, therefore, to pensioners who are in receipt of pensions in excess of £450, which is the class to which Senator Sheehy Skeffington is now referring, there can be no question of saying: "Thank you for nothing." If I had followed the 1950 precedent, they would not be getting the 6 per cent. increase and it is not merely illusory but deliberately drawing an incorrect red herring across the trail to suggest that it is thanks for nothing.

With respect, might I submit to the Minister that his remarks are not in order?

That is a matter for the Chair. The Senator ought not to repeat himself too often.

For the reason that he has said he has given them for the first time a 6 per cent. increase. But we are now discussing Section 3. I am sure the Chair will confirm me on that. Section 3 does not give them an increase of 6 per cent. Section 2 gives them an increase of 6 per cent.

Section 3 gives them the alternative of the 6 per cent. and something else.

That is precisely what is illusory—the actual section which we were discussing. I make no apology for referring solely to the section we are discussing. The previous section has already been accepted by the Seanad. Perhaps I did not make my point clear enough. Allowing these people to choose something instead of the 6 per cent. is, I admit, new and a concession, but with respect to the Minister it arises in the previous section—the suggestion, however, that we are allowing them a "choice", giving them a "concession", in this section is what I suggest is illusory.

The Senator has said all that before.

Excuse me, a Chathaoirleach, before, the Minister was allowed to suggest that under this section he was conceding a 6 per cent. increase "for the first time" which simply is not so. It is not under this section. You are conceding under this section something which I termed illusory—not the 6 per cent. increase, but the choice between the 6 per cent. and the super-cut moiety. It is the "choice" that is largely illusory, and, consequently, an unreal thing. I freely concede that the previously granted 6 per cent. increase is at least something, but the fact that you are allowing the civil servant a "choice" between that and something else, which is practically the same thing, is, I suggest, illusory.

Does the Senator propose the deletion of the section?

I should like very briefly to say that I support the case made by Senator Stanford and I should like to urge the Minister to give it his very favourable consideration. The salaries of the people concerned are decreasing year by year and when we talk of spending millions, the £4,000 required in this case seems to be a very insignificant sum. I trust that when the first opportunity arises the Minister will give his favourable consideration to the case made by Senator Stanford on behalf of those people.

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I think that Senator Sheehy Skeffington has been unfair to the Minister and the Bill. There is a certain generosity in this Bill and I think he should recognise it. I think the Senator has not read as carefully as he might the figures provided, because in some cases there are differences of £12, £17 and £6 between the moiety and the 6 per cent. pension.

It applies both ways.

It applies both ways, but there are very considerable differences. There is £12 on one side and £17 on the other. I think I speak for the people concerned in thanking the Minister for his generosity, even if it has to be limited generosity in this case.

Is this discussion not another example of all I said about the previous section? It is because the Minister is doing something for these people whose services I appreciate very highly that we can discuss the section and ask the Minister to do something more. I know the people concerned are old and have given very devoted service. Something is being done for them in this Bill and nothing was ever done for them since the war. The Minister, as Senator Stanford said, is at any rate doing something for them and it is because he is doing it that he is asked to do more. The great argument for doing more at some point is that, along with having given long service, these people are in the nature of things a disappearing section. Because the Minister makes a concession, he leaves the matter open for discussion and he leaves himself open to be urged to make further concessions.

In relation, to what Senator Hayes has just said, there is no use whatever in drawing comparisons and comparing dates because what we are doing here, I take it, is endeavouring to go some way, even though only part of the way, towards compensating those people for the steep rise in the cost of living. It is because of that very fact, I take it, that these increases are being given to the State servants and the servants of local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

I omitted to say one thing and I think it would be improper to allow this Bill to go through without my saying so officially as Minister for Finance. Other Senators referred to the assistance that had been given by the senior civil servants throughout the years, both in the earlier formative period of the State and subsequently. I should like to put on record my appreciation of that service. In the short time that I have been in public life on both sides of the House, I have come to appreciate how hard the senior civil servants work and how little the hardness of their work is appreciated outside very few people indeed.

I should like to endorse on this side of the House what the Minister has said about the senior civil servants.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn