Army Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1961 ( Certified Money Bill ): Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Aire Cosanta (Caoimhghin Ó Beoláin)

Is é príomh-chuspóir an Bhille éifeacht reachtúil a thabhairt do na méaduithe ar phinsin chréachta ar phinsin mhíchumais agus ar phinsin phósta agus ar liúntais áirithe do chleithiúnaithe daoine marbha a deonadh ón lú Lúnasa, 1960, amach, ar údarás, Meastacháin Bhreise le haghaidh pinsean a ritheadh i nDáil Éireann ar an 20ú Iúil, 1960.

Tríd is tríd, tá na méaduithe sin, a bhfuil tráchta déanta orthu in Alt 2 go hAlt 23 go huile, agus in Altanna 25, 26 agus 27, de réir na méaduithe le haghaidh pinsinéirí Stáit, i gcoitinne, a údaraíodh ag an Aire Airgeadais ina Ráiteas ar an gCáinaisnéis in Aibreán, 1960, ach nuair a luaitear an céad dáta cáilithe maidir le hurscaoileadh, meastar, ós dáta an lú Meán Fómhair, 1949, a ghabhann le hathrú ar phá an Airm, go bhfuil sé níos oiriúnaí ina leith sin ná an lú Samhain, 1948 — is é sin, an dáta a luadh sa Ráiteas Cáinaisnéise do phinsinéirí eile Stáit. Tá pinsinéirí oifigeach a bhfuil a bpinsin gaolmhar do phá, ag fáil méaduithe de 7½% nó do 5% (de réir an dáta urscaoilte) agus tá pinsinéirí eile faoi na hAchtanna, nach bhfuil a bpinsin gaolmhar do phá an Airm, ag fáil méadú de 7½%. Tá liúntaisí cleithiúnaigh (lena n-áirítear liúntas is iníoctha do bhaintreach Síniúir Forógra 1916) á méadú, i gcoitinne, de 7½% comh maith, ach beidh an ráta méaduithe de 5% i bhfeidhm i gcás liúntais is iníoctha de dhreifiúracha agus leanaí Síniúir Forógra 1916 agus i gcás liúntais is iníoctha faoi Cuid II d'Acht 1953 do ghaolta fir a thug seirbhís réamh-Shosa agus atá marbh; de bhrí gur socruíodh rátaí bunaidh na liúntas seo i ndiaidh an chéad dáta cinnteach, 1 Samhain, 1948, a luadh san Ráiteas ar an gCáinaisnéis. Meastar go gcosnóidh na méaduithe seo, go léir, £17,102 in aghaidh na bliana.

Luadh san Ráiteas ar an gCáinaisnéis go raibh sé i gceist suim bhreise de £30,000 a chur ar fáil lena méadófaí liúntaisí speisialta is iníoctha faoi na hAchtanna de dhaoine ag a bhfuil pinsin as míchumas is inchurtha i leith seirbhís réamh-Shosa, dóibh siúd atá i dteidil pinsean faoi Achtanna na bPinsean Seirbhíse Míleata nó na hAchtanna um na Connaught Rangers (Pinsin) agus do dhaoine ag a bhfuil boinn i leith seirbhíse le heagraíochtaí áirithe nó mar chomhaltaí díobhtha sin. Taréis breithniú mionchruinn a dhéanamh ar an gceist, beartaíodh suim bhreise gar do £75,000 sa bhliain a chaitheamh d'fhonn liúntaisí speisialta a mhéadú, in áit an £30,000 a bhí i gceist. Beidh éifeacht ag na méaduithe sin ón 6ú Eanáir, 1961, i leith — 'sé seo dáta tosnuithe na bPinsean nua Sean-Aoise (Ranníocach) faoi na hAchtanna Leasa Shóisialaigh — agus meastar go gcosnóidh na méaduithe £11,000 sa bhliain reatha.

Tugann Alt 24 den Bhille éifeacht dona méaduithe atá beartaithe sna "suimeanna bliantúla iomchuí". Méaduítear iad de £13 sa bhliain, ach, i gcás nach bhfuil pinsean sean-aoise ranníocach iníochtha le duine pósta in aois 70 nó ós a chionn agus nach bhfuil pinsean sean-aoise ar bith nó pinsean dalla ag a chéile, sé £36 10s. sa bhliain ráta an mhéadú. Cómh maith leis seo, tá £1 6s. sa bhreis le haghaidh gach pháiste ináirithe.

Sé cuspóir atá aga na méaduithe do dhaoine in aois 70 mbliain nó ós a chionn — cómh maith le measú mar mhaoin na bPinsean sean-aoise — go mbéadh, ag pinsinéirí sean-aoise, idir pinsean (nó pinsin) sean-aoise, maoin eile in-mheasúnaithe agus liúntas speisialta suim gar do £4 sa tseachtain i gcás daoine pósta agus £3 2s. 6d. sa tseachtain i gcás na ndaoine neamhphósta.

Tá súil agam go bhfaighidh Seanadóirí sa ghearr-chuntas seo ar théarmaí an Bhille, léargas ginerálta ar a bhfuil sa Bhille ar fad.

The main object of this Bill is to give statutory effect to the increases in wound, disability and married pensions and in certain allowances to dependants of deceased persons which were granted from 1st August, 1960, on the authority of a Supplementary Estimate for pensions passed in Dáil Éireann on 20th July, 1960.

The increases, which are dealt with in Sections 2 to 23 inclusive, 25, 26 and 27, are broadly in accordance with the increases for State pensioners, generally, authorised by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement in April, 1960, except that where the first qualifying date of discharge is mentioned, 1st September, 1949, being a date associated with an Army pay change, is considered to be more appropriate than 1st November, 1948, the date mentioned in the Budget Statement for other State pensioners. Officer pensioners whose pensions are related to pay are receiving 7½% or 5% increases, depending on date of discharge, and other pensioners under the Acts, whose pensions are not related to Army pay are receiving an increase of 7½%. Dependants' allowances, including that payable to the widow of a Signatory of the 1916 Proclamation are, generally, being increased by 7½% also, but the allowances payable to the sisters and children of Signatories as well as those payable under Part II of the Act of 1953 to relatives of deceased pre-Truce servicemen qualify for the lower rate of increases (5%) because the basic rates of these allowances were fixed after the first critical date, 1st November, 1948, mentioned in the Budget Statement. The estimated annual cost of these increases is £17,102.

Reference was made in the Budget Statement to the proposed allocation of a further sum of approximately £30,000 to increasing special allowances payable under the Acts to persons in receipt of pensions for disablement attributable to pre-Truce service, to persons eligible for pensions under the Military Service Pensions Acts or the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Acts and to holders of medals in respect of service with, or membership of, certain organisations. Following detailed consideration of the position it has been decided to allocate approximately £75,000 a year, instead of the £30,000 originally envisaged, to the improvement of special allowances. These improvements will take effect from 6th January, 1961, which is also the date of commencement for the new old age (contributory) pensions under the Social Welfare Acts and the cost of the increases expected to fall as a charge on the current year's Vote is estimated at £11,000.

Section 24 of the Bill provides for the increase of the "appropriate annual sums". These now become higher by £13 per annum except in the case where an old age contributory pension is not payable to a married man or woman of seventy years or over and such person's spouse is not in receipt of an old age, contributory or non-contributory, pension or a blind pension when the rate of increase is £36.10.0 per annum. As well, there is an increase of £1.6.0 a year for each reckonable child.

The effect of the increases in the case of persons of seventy years and over, taken in conjunction with the assessment as means of old age pensions is that an old age pensioner should have by way of old age pension or pensions, other assessable means and special allowance combined a sum of £4 a week approximately if married and £3.2.6 a week if single.

I trust that this précis of the terms of the Bill will have furnished Senators with an outline of what is contained in the measure.

Mr. Carton

I would like to say that the Minister is not entirely right when he says that the previous Government gave no rise at all. In 1950, Deputy McGilligan gave an increase to the existing pensioners and I should be extremely glad if the Minister would take pattern from the method by which he did that, that is, by bringing existing pensioners to the level of the general Army rates. We hope, however, that he will eventually do that. He is looking at me somewhat quizzically. I hope he understands.

Mr. K. Boland

I do not.

Mr. Carton

In 1950, Deputy McGilligan brought pensioners who were out prior to 1946 all to the same level.

Mr. K. Boland

The Senator, I think, is referring to the Defence Forces Scheme but we are dealing with Army pensions, that is, wound and disability pensions. Senator Carton is referring to scheme pensions.

Mr. Carton

That is so, but still it is applicable and the Minister might keep it in mind.

This is a Bill to give authority to what has been done since August. I welcome the measure and pay a tribute to the Minister because he has given this increase, but I have just one small comment. I understand that the Minister will come into the Seanad on Army pay and pensions generally long before 1962, when he will probably not be here, please God.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Please God, he will.

Mr. Carton

You know you are one I would like to see out and I will do all in my power to get you out.

Mr. Carter

Get Captain Peadar Cowan after you.

Mr. Carton

That is unfair to the gallant captain. I would like to comment on just one point and leave it to the House to think along those lines. I think it proper to make a short reference to what the State considers sufficient to keep a totally disabled man in 1961: £2 11s. per week. I do not think that any person in this or in the other House could possibly imagine that a totally incapacitated man could live on £2 11s. per week. It may be that the Minister has not got the finance to give him £11 2s. but that does not take from the fact that it is fair comment to say that that is unfair to the private soldier. It is in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill: group one, 100 per cent. disability, 51/-. That is, to my mind, a small amount of money.

The last time the Minister graced the House with his presence, he made on his way out a sort of promise that he would continue his annual increase of five or seven per cent. in pensions in each of the remaining years he was in office. I sincerely hope that he will do the same this year and I hope we are here to give it next year. Any time you give an increase in disability, would, Army or Old I.R.A. pensions you will never find a soul in this or the other House to disagree. Even if it is the smallest of microscopically small mercies, we accept it with pleasure.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

I should like to join with Senator Carton in hoping that the Minister will be here next year to bring in further increases. As many Senators said, it is a pity that these increases are so small each time. It would be far more satisfactory for all of us if we could have a decent increase once in a while. However, if they come often enough, we may not have so much to grumble about. I should like to make it known to the Minister and to any other Minister who may be here at any time in the future that there will always be members in this House who will do their utmost to ensure that increases will come often. There will be no objection to them. I have never seen any member of this or the other House objecting at any time to any such increases and, for that reason, I believe the Government should try to be more generous, but such as the increases are, we are grateful for them indeed.

I am disappointed that there are not in the Bill a few things I think should be in it. Increases in disability pensions are mentioned. We had a long debate here last year on increases in disability pensions and, among those increases, there was one which meant the abolition of the marriage ban, that is, an extension of the marriage date. At that time, we were informed that if the requests made here and in the other House were acceded to, it would cost £20,000 or £30,000. I was very disappointed to find that when the marriage date was extended, it applied only to pensioners with 80 to 100 per cent. disability and no consideration was given under that heading to such pensioners with less than 80 per cent. disability. I think that is wrong and I appeal to the Minister to have the matter rectified at the earliest possible date.

There is another matter which, I think, governs the request I have made. There are men who got final disability pensions many years ago. When they were young men, they did not feel their wounds would be worse than they were at the time. These men who were pleased to get what was called at that time a final pension, did not know what it meant at that time. The young man suffering from the effects of a wound or a disease felt he was going to be here a good while yet and it would be worth something to him. As the years went on and that man grew older, he felt himself becoming worse and worse. The man who had only a 50, 60 or 70 per cent. disability 25 years ago is almost 100 per cent. disabled now. Unfortunately, under the law there is no way in which the Minister can reopen that final pension and reassess that man's disablement. That is wrong. I think the State defrauded, if you like, that man when they gave him a final pension and said: "We have no more responsibility for you. You get so much a week and we are through with you." When he got worse, he had no remedy.

There are people who did not accept the final pension at the time. As they grow older and their disability becomes greater, the pension is increased automatically, but the man who got a final pension is finished, as far as any increase is concerned. It does not matter how much his disablement or disability increases, he will not get any higher pension. I think the Minister should take special note of that.

There should be some machinery in the Department for reopening final disability pensions where there is no doubt that the man or woman has now much more than a 25 per cent., 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. disablement. I am very insistent on this matter and I hope to raise it every time Army pensions are mentioned here until it is adjusted. The Minister may reply that a man is given 10 years in which to show that the disability has increased but 10 years is not much to a young man. It is a lot to a man who is much older. That 10 years period in all cases expired long ago and there is no machinery whereby these cases can be reopened.

We must welcome, of course, the increase in the appropriate sum of the special allowance but I regret very much that it was not made more simple than that shown in the statement. It will be difficult for the ordinary man to reckon his appropriate sum now. There are various methods of assessing it, for instance, with regard to the contributory old age pension. I think there should be a flat rate. While it would be helpful in some cases, I feel there are persons in the country now who will actually lose the special allowance awarded them under this system. It will be very hard to explain that.

I noticed that in reply to a question in the Dáil a few weeks ago, the Minister said that the contributory old age pension would not be likely to make any difference to any person in receipt of a special allowance. It had made no difference up to this but whatever the words were, they conveyed to me, anyway, that there would not be any difference. But now I notice in this Bill that it will make a lot of difference to some people because they will lose the special allowance altogether, whereas others will benefit.

I welcome of course the increase in the appropriate annual sum. That will do a lot of good but I find it very hard to explain to any person who may ask me why So-and-So will lose the special allowance because his wife is getting something under the contributory old age pension scheme. I should like to know what the actual cost was of the amendment extending the marriage date. I forgot to mention that at the outset when we were told that it would cost £20,000 or £30,000. I should like to know what the actual cost was and I hope the Minister will answer my question when he replies.

With regard to the special allowance, I think some consideration should be given, whether by amendment of this Bill or in another Bill, to widows of men who died when they are drawing the special allowance and have no other means of existence. A man gets a special allowance because he has no other means. When he dies, his widow is completely stranded because the special allowance dies with him. I think she should get some consideration because she is his wife. Where the sole means of a married couple is the special allowance, some consideration should be given to the widow.

People who are in receipt of a special allowance, too, cannot afford to spare money out of it when the ceiling is £4 a week for a man and wife. They cannot be expected to save anything out of that. Sometimes, when an old I.R.A. man dies, the widow cannot be expected to have made any savings out of the £4 a week to help bury her husband. There should be some fund set up in the Department of Defence which could be called upon to contribute towards the burial expenses in necessitous cases. My experience tells me that such a thing is very necessary, especially now when there is a ceiling of £4 per week and we cannot expect them to save. I had many queries from people asking if there was any help to be got anywhere towards burial expenses. I think it no harm to mention at this stage that even though the Minister came last year and this year with an increase, if he came next month with an increase for military service pensions, he will be very welcome.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

I should like to join with the other speakers in asking for a bigger percentage than 5 per cent. or 7½ per cent. for these men. I am alarmed at the moment at the number of people in receipt of special allowance whose claims are being investigated by social welfare officers and who have had their allowances cut off. This appears to be very marked at the present moment and I would ask the Minister to take a special note of it and to see where the instructions are going to these officers to come down on these people who are mostly advanced in years now and not in a position to earn their living. I think also that pensioners who are in receipt of under £100 per annum should get special treatment and that they should not be treated to a five per cent. or a 7½ per cent. increase. We know what £2 a week means at the moment but there are several men who gave good service and who are in receipt of pensions as low as £20 or £30 a year. I think the time has come when they should get a substantial increase. I would also ask the Minister to look into the case of the widows and to treat it sympathetically.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Tá fáilte agam-sa roimh an mBille seo mar go bhfuil foláireamh ann chun méaduithe a thabhairt d'aicmí áirithe daoine go bhfuil a leithéid ag teastáil uatha. Táthar ag gearán anseo ná fuil an méid atá á thabhairt mór go leor. Is fuiriste é sin a rá dar ndóigh, ach caithfimíd cuimhneamh ar an méid eile daoine go bhfuil méaduithe le tabhairt dóibh chomh maith. Go deimhin, bheinn-se i bhfábhar níos mó a thabhairt do na daoine atá i gceist dá mb'fhéidir é.

Bhí cuid dena na Seanadóirí thall á rá go bhfuil an tAire ag teacht isteach ró mhinic le méaduithe beaga, ach níl aon locht le fáil agam air sin más méaduithe in aon chor iad. Ba mheasa an scéal againn i bhfad dá mba chun na bpinsean san a laghdú a tháinig an tAire isteach, nó dá mba rud é nár tháinig sé isteach in aon chor.

Dhein an Seanadóir T. Ó Súilleabháin tagairt d'allúntaisí speisialta, agus tá rún agam-sa an rud céanna a dhéanamh. Is mar gheall ar ná fuil na daoine atá i gceist go maith as sa tsaol a tugadh nó a tugtar an t-allúntas sin dóibh, ach ansin nuair a shroiseann said aois an phinsin sean-aoise baintear an tarna allúntas de chuid acu go bhfuil pinsean de shaghas áirithe acu, nó laghdaítear é ach go háirithe. Ní dóigh liom gur ceart é sin in aon chor agus ba mhaith liom go ndéanfadh an tAire athmhachnamh ar an gceist sin. Ní dóigh liom gur cóir an tarna allúntas atá á fháil acu a chur san áireamh in aon chor. B'fhéidir áfach gur ceist airgid é sin—ná fuil go leor airgid ag an Aire. Má sea, b'fhéidir go mbeadh sé aige uair éigin eile.

Mar adúras i dtosach, dá mhinicí á thagann an tAire isteach cughainn sea is fearr é. Béidh failte is fiche roimis.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 15 Mar 1961

Army Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1961 ( Certified Money Bill ): Second and Subsequent Stages.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1961