Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Aug 1971

Vol. 71 No. 1

Army Pensions Bill, 1971: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Boland

Before business was suspended I referred to the fact that some of the payments to widows of military service pensioners were, in my opinion, inadequate. I should like to refer to something that was adverted to by Senator Belton and that is the fact that the Bill, as it comes before us, allows for the Minister to elicit such information as is necessary. Subsection (4) of section 1 reads:

Every application for an allowance under this section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as the Minister may require.

This does not relate solely to the Department of Defence; it relates to Government Departments generally. There is far too much bureauracy of the most stifling kind embodied in our legislation and in legislative proposals. There could not be all that much information that the Minister would require from the widow of somebody who was already in receipt of a military service pension or a Connaught Rangers pension in order to establish that she qualified for 50 per cent of that pension. Instead of that we will probably get a most complicated form which will be presented in almost every case to a lady in the autumn of her life asking her to supply all sorts of data, 95 per cent of which will be quite irrelevant to the question as to whether or not she qualified for a pension under the Army Pensions Bill, 1971. When one bears in mind that this does not in any way interfere with her right to social welfare payments under the Social Welfare Acts and the social welfare code it seems a little bit strange that the Minister for Defence should want to ask questions "in such a form and contain such particulars as the Minister may require."

There is also the question of a widow of a military service pensioner who may, in order to keep body and soul together — and this would relate especially to those cases of hardship and privation to which I referred before tea — be working in a part-time or full-time capacity, earning £7 or £8 a week, which would be just outside, or on the borders, of the tax net. The Minister made it clear that the payment of a pension under this legislation would not, in any way, interfere with payments under the social welfare code. What he did not make clear — and I would consequently assume it is not the case — was that the payments of this pension would not be assessable for income tax purposes. That being the case, if there is a widow who is working and earning £7 or £8 a week to keep body and soul together and she applies for and receives a 50 per cent pension under this measure, the receipt of that pension — let us say it is £3 or £4 a week — could well mean that she is brought within the tax net and, out of a pension of £3 a week, she would be asked to pay £1 by way of taxation.

I would have thought we had enough respect for our military service pensioners and their dependants to be in a position in 1971 to exclude for the purpose of income tax the payment of pensions either under the Military Service Pensions Acts or under this Army Pensions measure. I should like the Minister, when he is replying, to give us his views on this.

There is also another anomaly which could very well arise under this Bill. The Minister has, quite rightly, I think, decided that the minimum pension under this Bill should be a pension of £52.20 per annum and that that would be so even in the case where £52.20 per annum is more than half the husband's pension and we could have a situation in which a widow would be paid £52.20 per annum where her husband received £40 per annum.

When the Minister is replying, I should like him to explain to us how, in justice and equity, he can uphold a situation where two men of equal rank and of equal service were both granted a pension of £40 per year; one dies in due course and under this Bill, his widow will be paid £50.20 per annum while his colleague, of equal service and equal rank, is paid £40 per annum. It is quite likely that the colleague is also maintaining a wife. I do not see the fairness in that and the Minister, who has quite rightly introduced a minimum pension of £52.20 per annum for widows, has very clearly and definitely brought out the fact that the minimum military service pension to the IRA veteran himself is far, far lower than it should be. The fact that this anomaly will arise in the future, and that a military service pensioner with a wife could be in receipt of a smaller pension than the widow of one of his former colleagues, will emphasise that even more.

Would the Minister, in replying, briefly explain to us if he can include under this Bill, or in some other way, payment of an equivalent pension to the widows of men who would have qualified for military service pensions but did not make application for them? The Minister should find a way in which those widows can receive what is rightfully theirs. He should bear in mind the fact that, because of the failure of their husbands to apply for pensions down through the years, the State has been saved a considerable amount of money in some cases.

Secondly, would the Minister tell us why he does not feel empowered to extend to the widows of military service pensioners the free travel concession which their husbands enjoy; if he feels that they are entitled to 50 per cent of their husbands' pensions why are they not entitled to at least 50 per cent of their husbands' free travel concession?

Thirdly, would the Minister tell us why he feels that the wife of a military service pensioner can receive free travel when she accompanies him, but not if she uses public transport on her own?

Fourthly, accepting that the minimum pension under this Bill will be £52.20 per annum, would the Minister tell us what he envisages the maximum to be? How much does he envisage this scheme will cost for a whole year? How many widows does he think are involved? How many military service pensioners are still alive and in receipt of pensions, and how many Connaught Rangers pensioners are still alive?

In the event of the Minister for Finance increasing the ex gratia payment to widows of civil servants to bring it up to a higher percentage than 50 per cent, which he can do without introducing legislation, would the Minister for Defence be inclined likewise to increase the percentage payment to the widows of military service pensioners? Would he introduce a Bill to amend the present Bill? How would the Minister envisage contacting the widows who would be eligible for pensions under this Bill, but who may not realise that they are so eligible? Why does the Minister feel obliged to exclude from this scheme the widow of a military service pensioner who is entitled to a pension, but who decides to remarry? If the Minister answers these questions, then I have done my task here.

Miss Owens

Briefly, I should like to add my voice in support of the other speakers who have welcomed this Bill. I should like to make a few comments, on a matter referred to by the previous speaker. Senator Boland referred to the widow who, on remarriage, would be deprived of the allowance. This may surprise Members but, frankly, I am entirely in agreement with the Minister on this. Until the day we pay all housewives a proper allowance we should not single out any particular category of them. I consider also that our widows' allowances generally are completely inadequate. Until such time as we are in a position to provide for them properly, and to see that they, on their own initiative, can provide for their children, I do not think that we are in a position to allow a widow who chooses to remarry to continue to have a State, or a semi-State, pension. I say this with some reluctance, perhaps, because Senator Boland was probably trying to taunt the lady Senators to come in on this debate. However, I feel very strongly on this question as to where we should look to our priorities in distributing whatever is available to help the poorer sections of our community.

I should like to draw Senator Boland's attention to the fact that the widow who does not choose to remarry needs the support. When she looks for employment — and, on the level of allowances which she gets in this country, she certainly has to — the very fact that she is a woman means that she is paid approximately 57 per cent of the going rate for the job. This is something that should be remedied first before we come to the stage at which we shall, perhaps, some day be paying all housewives for the very valuable contribution that they make to this State.

Another point in the Bill with which I do not agree is the date on which it becomes operative, 1st October, 1971. I know that the intention to introduce this Bill was announced in the Budget and that it is part of the Budget provisions for the current year, but it is a pity that it has not been given some retrospection. The Army pensioners, the widows of Civil Service pensioners and local authority pensioners, and I think the teaching professions, were given pensions back-dated at least two or three years. I am open to correction on the actual operative date. It is unfortunate that the Minister has not been able to introduce some retrospective element. As some of the pensions will be as low as £52.20 per annum retrospection of a year in those cases would not cost the Exchequer so much.

While I am on this point, I should like to mention the position of our State pensioners generally. We have seen a long statement in the newspapers today from the organisation of the Civil Service pensioners. They feel, rightly I think, that they have been let down rather badly. They have been left behind in the general type of increases that are being awarded. They are the weakest section of our community from a bargaining point of view and it is very important that we, in the Legislature should be particularly concerned about them. We are all aware of the increased cost of living and of the difficulty of these people on a fixed income have in meeting the demands made on them. Demands on them can be exceptionally heavy, when one considers that they are in the later days of their lives and their expenditure must be higher than that of the average healthy young person.

I agree with Senator Boland and I am anxious to hear the Minister's reply as to how he intends to operate the scheme when a widow remarries and the pension is terminated. There may be an administrative difficulty here and I should like to know what type of notice is brought to the attention of those widows who remarry. I should not like to see any of them in the position — it could easily happen — in which they would be overpaid for a year or two. They should be warned clearly and an explanation should be clearly given that there is an obligation on them to declare remarriage.

With reference to the question of application for the pension, I know that when the pension in the Civil Service was introduced it was an extraordinarily difficult task for the Department of Finance to locate all the widows involved and, after 18 months operation, there are still widows who are not aware of this pension scheme. I ask the Minister and his Department to make every effort to publicise the fact that this scheme, when it comes into operation, will be available and to urge people, who may be entitled to apply, to do so and take advantage of their rights.

Senator Boland referred to the question of the effects of the receipt of this type of pension on a widow who is at present in receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension. She may, by a small margin, be deprived of her non-contributory widow's pension and as a result, lose the other facilities she gets, such as free travel and free light. These are of considerable value. I was pleased to see a report in yesterday's paper, I think it was, that the Minister for Finance has agreed to discuss this question with the Minister for Social Welfare. This is at the instigation of the Association of Civil Service Widows. I hope the matter will be resolved and that people who are to benefit under this Bill will do so and not find out, in the heel of the hunt, that they end up worse off than they were before.

Mr. O'Higgins

I should like to say a few words on this Bill. I am sorry to begin by disagreeing emphatically with Senator Owens in her remarks with regard to widows in receipt of these allowances losing them on re-marriage. I may be wrong in my approach to this, but I am fortified by having read some of the remarks made by the Minister in the other House to think that I am correct. My approach to this is that while all of us will welcome whatever can be done to help the lot of those who are regarded rightly as veterans of the fight for independence in this country and for their widows, the financial provisions which have been made for them and the financial provisions which are being made for widows under this Bill are inadequate having regard to the service rendered by those people to the country.

We cannot regard the allowances being made as anything more than a gesture or a symbol of the honour which the State would wish to pay to them. Looking on the matter in that light, there is no justification for depriving a widow who re-marries of an allowance paid under the provisions of the Bill. I do not wish to be churlish about this. I am glad the Minister has introduced this measure and that provision was made for it in the Budget. The Minister should be commended for bringing in the Bill and for his back-room work in ensuring that provision in this respect was made in the Budget. At the same time, what we are paying is not enough; it is nothing more than a gesture or a symbol. It is something which signifies the honour and respect with which we feel these people should be treated.

When the Minister was replying to the Second Reading discussion on this matter in the other House he said this at column 1924 of the Dáil Official Report of 20th July of this year:

Or course this is as it should be. I should like to point out that of themselves these allowances should not be regarded as a means of providing a living for these widows. They are intended to supplement the incomes of widows and they will be a help in that way. They should be looked on primarily as a practical gesture in honour of those who rendered very valuable service in the war of independence. I would not say that the allowances are in any way a measure of the value of these men's performance.

I am prepared to view the Bill in the light of those remarks of the Minister and in the light of them I cannot see what the justification is for discontinuing an allowance on re-marriage. I do not think a case could be made for a person in receipt of a pension for the pension to go on ad infinitum from one member of a family to another but the case of the veteran pensioner who has died and his widow is in a different category. Both Houses of the Oireachtas would be very happy to feel that when this legislation is enacted the allowance made to the widow at least would remain with her for the duration of her life. On the law of averages, it is not likely to be a strain on the Exchequer for a very long period. When one regards it in the nature of a practical gesture in honour of those who fought for our independence, I feel that that practical gesture in their honour should continue at least for the lifetime of the widow. To that extent I disagree with the remarks made by Senator Owens on that subject.

I should like again to say that although we welcome that this measure has been introduced, it is a pity we cannot be even more generous. I do not say that in any grudging sense. All of us, on both sides of the House, would feel that if we, as a country in our economy, could afford to be more generous with a diminishing number of people such as are involved.

Senator Boland raised a number of queries which are valid, and I should like to hear the Minister dealing with them when replying to this discussion. I was particularly impressed by the argument developed with regard to travelling allowances. There does not seem to be any good reason for a differentiation between the case of a pensioner who gets a travel allowance for his wife, provided the wife is travelling with him, and a case where the wife is travelling on her own. That is a matter which the Minister, who has shown his good intentions by the introduction of this Bill, might take up and examine again. I would also urge that at some stage — obviously in view of the case the Minister has made it cannot very easily be done in the context of this Bill — the question of those who are entitled to pensions but did not apply for them should be reconsidered.

The argument was made in the other House to the Minister that there would, be cases, possibly only a limited number, of IRA veterans who would clearly have been entitled to medals and to pensions had they applied for them. Some for entirely worthy patriotic motives never made application. They did not feel that the services they had performed in the early days for this State were given in order to qualify for pensions or to get any reward. From those purely unselfish patriotic motives they did not apply for medals or pensions. With the turn of the wheel where they have passed on and their widows may find themselves in very straitened circumstances, it seems to me that there is a case for looking at again in relation to these people. Surely the person who was entitled to a pension and did not apply for one has over the years saved this country an amount of money? Yet his widow is to be precluded from getting any allowance under this Bill.

I know the Minister has difficulties in relation to this matter and I appreciate the difficulty of trying to deal with it within the framework of this Bill. I would welcome some indication from the Minister when he is replying to this discussion that he will have a look at that problem again, possibly before the next Budget, and talk to his colleague in the Department of Finance to see if some suitable type of machinery might not be devised whereby cases of that sort could be dealt with. They are reasonable cases and even though the widows may possibly feel the same way as their husbands, at least the machinery should be there to enable them to make application if they are in circumstances where an allowance of the sort provided for in this Bill would be necessary to them.

I should just like to ask one other question of the Minister and this may possibly be due to precedent rather than for any other reason. Section 1 (1) begins:

The Minister may grant to the widow (provided she has not remarried) of a person who was granted a pension under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, or the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, or a service pension under the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Act, 1936, an allowance of —

(a) £52.20 per annum, or

(b) one half of the annual rate of pension payable under any of the said Acts to her husband on the 1st day of October, 1971, or which would be payable to him if he were alive on that date,

whichever is the greater.

It is discretionary to the Minister under the terms of the Bill as it stands that he may grant allowances to widows of the minimum of £52.20 or one half of the amount of the pension which the husband was in receipt of. Why is that not mandatory? Why is it not worded that the Minister "shall" grant rather than "may" grant? This may be simply a question that this is the usual wording and that there is no question of a Minister exercising his discretion against an applicant who is qualified within the terms of the Bill. It is at least necessary for a House of the Oireachtas which has a revising character to point this out to the Minister. The Minister and maybe even his political heirs will not always be in that particular Department.

Theoretically it is open to the Minister under the terms of this Bill to exercise discretion in favour of certain applicants and against others. I know that is not the intention. I know that was not present in the mind of anyone who had a hand in the framing of this Bill. The Minister might consider, maybe not in this Bill but in future Bills, recasting that particular phraseology. The reason I do not press him unduly on it now is that I do not want to be responsible for holding up the Bill in any way because if it is amended here, even in a drafting sense, obviously it would have to go back to the Dáil before it could become law. If it is a matter of precedent that this is the phraseology that has always been used I am prepared to accept that, but if it is not, I would ask the Minister to look at it again in connection with any further measures in his Department of this sort.

Mr. Lyons

I should like to welcome this rather belated and not over generous allowance that under this Bill can be paid to the widows of Old IRA pensioners. All of us here, particularly members of local authorities and people who have served on old age pension committees, realise the hardships that have been suffered over the years by the veterans themselves and consequently by their wives and families. It can be said that we were not over-generous with our freedom fighters. As Senator O'Higgins said earlier, this is in the nature of a token payment rather than a salary or remuneration provided for services rendered. All of us who in the past have seen some of our freedom fighters die in the workhouse or county home and others who were too proud or too much involved on one side or the other in the civil war to apply for a pension, have also seen their families and their widows suffer hardship and there was nothing we could do about it.

As Senator Boland has requested, I hope the Minister will tell us when he is winding up the debate how many of these widows exist at the moment. Also it would be good for all of us to know how many of the freedom fighters are alive at the present time. The fact that a widow is to get 50 per cent of whatever pension her husband, if he had lived, would be getting on 1st October, 1971, might seem to be something until you realise that the vast majority of the people involved, the vast majority of veterans who have left widows behind them, were privates and the pensions which they got were miserable and the increases which have been given over the years were also miserable. Even though in many cases they might be given at the rate of 100 per cent, 100 per cent on £10 is very little. If the facts were known to the Oireachtas of the actual money involved it would shock all of us. While I compliment the Minister on attempting to do something at this late stage, I could only wish that in the shortest possible time he will attempt to do something more for these people.

All of us I am sure tried to do the best we could for them at local authority level under Health Acts and also on old age pension committees. It would appal many people here to know that when they made applications to the Department of Defence and went through the screen as it were, the manner in which this screening was done was to my mind shocking. Everybody knows that people engaged in combat do not always kill somebody and possibly the people who did most work never fired a shot — the people on outpost duty, the people who were carrying despatches, the people who night after night went to ambush points and did not take part in an ambush.

Those people were debarred from getting pensions purely because there was no referee to say that they had actually been engaged in combat. This screening was shameful. The fact that they belonged to the organisation and that it could be verified that they had given service within the particular period should have been enough rather than have this horrible screening that they were subjected to. I hope that as time goes on the Minister and the Department of Finance and all of us will realise that those people were wonderful people at a time when they had not as much education as they have now, at a time when to take up arms and train oneself was a tremendous job. Today it is not very difficult. One could almost train himself from television today. All of those people deserve the greatest respect and I am delighted that their widows will get the pittance, and it is a mere pittance.

I have a feeling that the number of Connaught Rangers' widows would be very small. There are various cases of hardship among the men who mutinied in India at that time — unfortunately, men who were illiterate — because even though the Connaught Rangers were a gallant regiment who showed their gallantry for their native land in the far off fields of India, many of them were unable to state the name of the town or the barracks which they were in at that time. Naturally enough the British officers were not very keen on letting the records of their enlistments and dates and attachments to barracks and that type of thing be known. I know one of them and I and many other people have tried to do something for him, all of us knowing that his comrades could tell that he took part in the mutiny, but unfortunately, we have not been able to do anything for him. I might be slightly out of order in introducing this note at this time but I think it is a thing that will do Senators good to hear.

Again, I would, with everybody else, ask the Minister to ensure that the wives will be able to have free travel without the husband because it only requires the issue of a simple warrant, a piece of paper, a card, sufficient identification for the person who will be travelling, and there is no problem in it financial, administrative or otherwise. When you think of it, it is so silly that the woman can travel free when she is with her husband and cannot travel free on her own. I would ask the Minister to ensure that regulation be changed as quickly as possible.

Most of what I had to say has been covered by the speakers before me but I would ask anybody who speaks here to do his best to ensure that the Minister gets from the floor here the encouragement he will need when he goes to the Minister for Finance, and if he gets that encouragement to provide moneys for those people, I hope it will be forthcoming.

Mrs. Desmond

I join with those Senators who have spoken in welcoming the decision of the Minister for Defence to introduce this Bill and thereby give some practical recognition of the debt we owe to people whose widows are being catered for under this measure. I accept the statement made by the Minister in the other House, according to Senator O'Higgins, that this allowance is merely in the nature of a subsidy to enable the widows of men who had military service pensions to live in somewhat more comfort than they might otherwise do. For that reason the criticism I intend to make might not be entirely relevant.

It appears to me that in measures relating to widows generally there is a tendency to allot to the widow 50 per cent of that accredited or paid to the husband if he were alive. While this may be a simple question of dividing by two, I think it is not as simple as that because in the case of any married couple there is the question of joint expenses, the question of running a home, and heating and lighting that home. This is certainly not diminished by half when one of the partners passes to his or her eternal reward. Therefore, this carrying through of 50 per cent for widows is, to my may of thinking, not justice. I am reminded to refer, as I am sure several other Senators have done, to a danger that might be inherent in this question of £52.20 leaving a widow with a sum of money which would debar her from receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension and thereby debarring her from free travel and free electricity.

I would appeal to the Minister, like the others who have spoken, not, perhaps, on this measure but on a subsequent measure that he might introduce, to amend this Bill to ensure that this will not happen. I cannot understand how the sum of £52.20 arises. I can never understand what sort of reasoning is behind 20 new pence. Why not 30 new pence or 40 new pence or round it off to 50 new pence? Why are these figures cut so fine when we are dealing with widows or social welfare recipients? We could break away. We have all complimented the Minister for introducing this measure. It is certainly a break. I think he should go a little further and look to the day when we would have a more enlightened approach to the people for whom we cater generally under legislation such as this.

The question of retrospection has been covered by many speakers. In measures such as this you invariably have the provisions coming into operation on a date sometime in the future. We have a very different approach to people who are getting several hundreds or several thousands of pounds from whatever source moneys are being applied to them. Retrospection for two, three or four years is quite in order. It would be a very generous gesture to these people if we were in a position to read in this Bill that the Minister intended to make the measure retrospective to October, 1970.

There are so many questions we all want to ask. We do not know how many of these widows are involved; we do not know what this measure will cost the State; we all tend to believe that the cost will be a minimal one. We hope that when the Minister is replying he will enlighten us in this regard. Were it possible to give retrospection to a measure such as this it would be a very good gesture towards the people with whom we are dealing.

Other Senators have referred to the fact that the Minister "may" make this payment to the widow of a pensioner, and that it is permissive rather than mandatory on the Minister to do this. Those of us who welcome this measure but who are a bit critical and would like to have something better done for these people, who would like to see their right established to this pension, would be anxious to have the word "shall" instead of "may" inserted in the Bill. By and large, we all welcome anything that will make easier the lot of people who will be beneficiaries under this measure. None of us wants to hold up this very welcome measure by the introduction of amendments at this stage but we would hope to see in the very near future some amending legislation that would give effect to the criticism we are making. By the introduction of the word "shall" instead of "may" we would establish the right of these widows to receive a pension.

Debate adjourned.