Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1923

Vol. 3 No. 30

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MOTION BY MINISTER FOR FINANCE—PAYMENT OF WOUND PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

In the absence of the President (Minister for Finance), I will move the following resolution. The necessary Message has been received from the Governor-General:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údarú go n-íocfar as airgead a sholáthróidh an t-Oireachtas aon chostaisí a údaruítear a chur suas fé aon Acht den tSiosón so:—

(a) chun pinsin agus aisci um chréachta d'íoc le baill chréachtnuithe d'Oglaigh na hEireann pe'ca baill den ghnáth-arm iad no óglaigh nách baill den ghnáth-arm, agus le baill chréachtnuithe d'Arm Cathránach na hEireann a bhí ann i 1916, agus chun fearaistí leighis do sholáthar agus gairmoiliúint do thabhairt do sna baill sin;

(b) chun liúntaisí agus aisci d'íoc le baintreacha, le clann, le cúram agus le leath-chúram atá i ndiaidh na ndaoine seo, eadhon, balla d'Oglaigh na hEireann pe'ca baill den ghnáth-arm do b'ea na baill sin no óglaigh nár bhaill den ghnáth-arm, agus balla d'Arm Cathránach na hEireann a bhí ann i 1916.

That is it expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas of any expenses authorised to be incurred under any Act of the present Session for:—

(a) the payment of wound pensions and gratuities to wounded members of Oglaigh na hEireann, including the Army and the Irish Volunteers, and also of the Irish Citizen Army, 1916, and the supply of medical appliances to, and the provision of vocational training for, such members;

(b) the payment of allowances and gratuities to the widows, children, dependants, and partial dependants of deceased members of Oglaigh na hEireann, including the Army and the Irish Volunteers, and also of the Irish Citizen Army, 1916.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to take the opportunity which the resolution provides for saying a word or two about one aspect of this Bill which may enable the Minister to speak, perhaps, more confidently when we come to the Committee Stage. I am referring to the period from which the pensions will be payable. Will they date back to any time, or will they be only payable from the passing of the Bill? More important still in one respect, I want to raise the question of the differences between the amounts provided with respect to officers and men, more particularly the men engaged in the fighting from 1916 to 1921 or 1922. I think that the differences are too great, and are not justified by the circumstances of that time, whatever might be the fact in regard to the Army of the present and the future. We know that in 1916 and pre-1916 that the Volunteers and the Citizen Army were comprised pretty generally of one grade, or within very small difference of one grade, in the social scale, and it was largely a matter of chance that one man was a commissioned officer, and another, his comrade, was a non-commissioned officer or private. The distinction that is drawn in the pension scale does not in any degree conform to any distinction that prevailed then. It seems to me somewhat unfortunate that we should make the big difference between the pensions scale, and more particularly in regard to the widows' pensions and the children's allowance. Take an instance I have in mind, of two men, artisans, comrades in every way, friends of years standing, whose wives were associated, lived as neighbours' children, brought up together, and in every respect men of the same social scale, standing, outlook on life and associations. One chose to be, and remained, a private. The other was an officer. They both lost their lives. Under the provisions of the Bill, in the one case the widow and children would be in receipt of £85 16s.; in the other case the widow and children would be in receipt of £186, in addition to which there is provision for an amount not exceeding £35 per year per child for the years between 12 and 18. Now, the effect of that is to make a gulf between the children which did not apply to the parents. It means that the children of the one are to be treated and educated in a way which the children of the other are precluded from. I think that is unfortunate. But, inasmuch as the numbers in those years were not very great, I would like to press upon the Minister the desirability of modifying this schedule somewhat at least in the direction that the children of the private and non-commissioned officer would be enabled to receive the same training and education as the children of the commissioned officer, so that that difference which would develop under this scheme between the social scale of the sons of one man and the sons of the other would not arise. I fear that the effect of this present scheme would be to create a difference which the men affected—the men who have lost their lives—would be the last to assent to. I think that there could well be a distinction drawn between the earlier period and the later period. I think very few will dissent from the proposition, for instance that the men who were active in the 1916 period might be treated separately, or even that those who were active up to the period of the Truce might be treated separately from the Army of to-day and the future. I am drawing attention to this matter now, as I think it is the right occasion to do it, with a view of hearing from the Minister, when we come to discuss the schedules, if he will be prepared to make some modifications in the scheme that is presented to us.

General MULCAHY

On the point as to how far back the payments of pensions and of gratuities will go in this matter. That is defined in the particular Clauses of the Bill. In the case of the man who lost his life or suffered disablement from wounds at any date prior to the 1st April, 1922, the payment of pension allowance in that particular case will be from the date, 1st April, 1922, and in the case of men losing their lives or suffering disablement from wounds at any date subsequent to that date, payment of pension allowance will be due to be made as from the date of death, or receipt of disabling wound. This is defined in Clause 8 (3) and in Clause 4 (3). The Bill generally makes it perfectly clear. On the matter of the differences between the officers and men, these differences, I have pointed out, have been very material. What is sought throughout the whole of this Bill to do is not exactly to pay compensation, but to endeavour to place the widow and children of any deceased member of the forces in such a position as he, if he had lived, would probably be able to place them. The officers that we have had, both in 1916 and the subsequent period and at the present time, have been men of initiative and character and ability as distinguished from the men who occupied subordinate positions, in such a way as to warrant our assuming that in the ordinary walks of life they would have distinguished themselves and progressed to a greater extent than the ordinary volunteers. Even in the case in which you have two men living side by side in the same street and brought up in the same associations, where you have the difference between men of that type that one will, in such a period as we have gone through, accept the responsibilities of an officer and accept the duties requiring energy and attention and hard work that falls on an officer as distinct from the ordinary private or volunteer, you must admit that there are material differences in character between two such men that warrant us in assuming that one would have attained to a better position in the ordinary affairs of the country than the other would. That is when you take general cases. If you take a particular case, it is always easy, perhaps, to argue for a particular case; but we are dealing with general cases that affect a number of different years in the country and a number of different parts of the country. On the general principle of making any particular distinction and of reviewing the principle by which we differentiate between officers and men, I do not think that I can undertake to make any changes. When you consider the proposal that we propose to make in respect of the education of children, there are only certain types and certain classes of children whom it is anything but a hardship to inflict education on up to eighteen years of age. While you may have many children of ordinary soldiers, exceptional children, who under ordinary circumstances might be able to make their mark at school to such an extent as to warrant their remaining at school and progressing at school through means of scholarship to take the fullest possible advantage of educational facilities, we cannot say generally that the class as a whole are such as would ordinarily have their education carried to that particular age. I am prepared to admit that there are children of the class of soldiers and ordinary volunteers whom it might be considered proper should be facilitated in their later school work, and I will undertake to consider whether, in respect of such children, whom it can be reasonably established either would have had these educational facilities if the father were alive or would be capable of benefiting generally from them, arrangements cannot be made to make provision for such children in the cases of non-commissioned officers and men. I will also say, perhaps, that we might consider the question as to all the men who took part in the 1916 rising— that is, the first period with which this Bill deals—whether special consideration may not be given in the case of men of that particular period in respect of pensions and gratuities due under this Bill and whether they could not be made at some flat rate. I will promise to have this point considered by the next day.

Mr. JOHNSON

The promise of the Minister is satisfactory in respect of those two points upon which he has given us an assurance. I would reinforce what I said earlier by reminding him that rank in the 1916 period did not necessarily represent any difference of ability or competence, but very largely represented opportunity. One man had more time to devote to the work of an officer than another. I think that is so, and certainly in cases that I am personally aware of the rank of the officer did not warrant one in thinking that he was likely to make a better position for himself in the material thing of life in the future over and above the position that would be won by many of those in his company. I think the promise of the Minister to consider the matter, particularly in relation to the men of the early period, when it was a pure volunteer force, covers most of my desire in the matter, and I thank him for the promise.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There was a matter which I mentioned on the Second Reading which I intended to bring up in Committee, but as I read this Financial Motion now I take it that I shall be precluded from doing so unless I raise it now. That is in respect of persons who served in these forces during our recent war, and whose families may now suffer some injury by reason of illnesses or constraint other than those that can be definitely described as wounds. I mention the case on the Second Reading of a number of those who are now in a state, say, of consumption, whose lives, in fact, have been despaired of. Three such definite cases are now present to my mind, and there are many other cases of a like sort. The Minister, when dealing with that matter, when I dealt with it on the Second Reading, stated that it was very difficult to get such cases absolutely checked, and in saying that he stated what was a very obvious truth. It is very hard to get cases of that kind definitely checked, and it is very hard to prove that injuries of that kind were sustained as a direct result of active service, but if such proof in the future could be provided, then I suggest that it would be unjust to preclude from the purview of such a Bill as this, and therefore a fortiorari to preclude from the purview of the financial motion which we are discussing, the relation of such cases as those. There are, as I say, a number of cases where I think such proof could be instantly provided. I am not asking that these cases should now be considered, and that the matter should now be finally decided, but I am asking what I am sure the Minister will agree is reasonable, and that is that the power of the Financial Motion and, ergo, the powers of the Bill to follow, should not preclude the consideration of such cases. If this Financial Motion passes in the form before us it will be impossible for us in the Committee Stage to consider such cases. You, sir, I assume would be required to rule such matters out of order because they were not provided by the financial resolution, and if they are not covered by the Bill itself, then all these cases pass by for the future, and I think that that would be an injustice. I suggest, without deciding these matters or without going into the whole question now, that the limits of the financial resolution and of the Bill itself should be so extended that, if at some future date satisfactory proof was available that injuries of the kind to which I refer were sustained as a result of hostilities in the war of liberation, people who incurred such injuries should not be precluded from the beneficial consequences of this Bill. Clearly they ought not to be. There are two cases of people who have been injured which occurred to my mind—one of a young lad who was injured, and had to have an amputation of his hand, but who, nevertheless, kept his life, and another case of a comrade of his who is at the present moment in a sanatorium in this county, and whose life is despaired of. Clearly the second case is much more injurious than the first. By this Bill the relatives of the first will be compensated, while in the case of the relatives of the second, for whom the lad was a breadwinner, no compensation will be given. I think that a case such as this comes within the general principles of the Bill, and if that were agreed the financial resolutions should be enlarged. I suggest this to the Minister.

Mr. ALFRED BYRNE

I see the same defects in this motion as does the previous speaker. I was going to ask the Minister whether cases such as those referred to by Deputy Figgis could not be considered or whether this motion could not be altered when the Bill goes forward to allow of cases where disabilities occur owing to army service other than wounds inflicted in fighting I am personally aware of a case in which a young man in the early stages after the Treaty was signed, one of those young men who was cheered through the streets of Dublin went to take possession of one of our barracks from the British military. There was no one on the premises to advise them of the proper quarters to sleep in, and this young man was put to sleep in a bed where there were dirty blankets in what was believed to be a hospital section. As a result of that, this young man has lost the sight of one of his eyes, and the other one will, during the next week or so, be lost also. He was a very poor boy, and I believe a very good soldier, and if this Bill debars cases like that, I think it should be amended. I only know one case, and will confine myself to that, and I ask the Minister whether a Board of Medical Referees should be set up to enquire into such cases as the one I have mentioned. It would save injustice being done to such young men.

Mr. LYONS

I would like to ask the Minister whether those men who are interned without any charge having been brought against them, and who are suffering from wounds sustained in the Anglo-Irish war will be entitled to compensation through this Act. I have received several communications from friends and dependants of those men in prison de claring that those prisoners are innocent. These men did a great deal to win the liberty of their country.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That cannot be raised; that is another question which arises on the Bill in Committee.

Mr. LYONS

There is another question I would like to ask, that is whether the large number of men who at the present time are suffering from loss of health owing to services rendered against the British Government will be included? This is a question of people who lost their health, and are not able to carry out their usual duties. It is not necessary for me to put forward the claims of the dependants of those who died from pneumonia, and those relatives of people who were shot, but I would like the Minister to answer the question whether those people who suffered any hardship will also be included in this Bill.

General MULCAHY

We realise there is that problem of persons who have suffered in health because of their military activities, but the number of actual cases is not at all as great as the number of claimant cases that are submitted to us. We are not prepared to undertake any commitment now either in the terms of the financial resolution, or in the terms of this Bill, which is meant to meet a very great proportion of the problem, and meet it quickly. We have no power to enter into any demands in respect of cases of loss of health. At the present moment that matter is under consideration with a view to seeing how best to deal with cases of that kind that can be established and that are bona fide. As to the matter of people who were disabled in previous periods, and who are now interned under suspicion, or for one reason or another, I do not know if there are interned any people who can be described as so disabled, but the discrimination that shall be made in the application of this Bill will not be hard or harsh, and any case of the kind will get the most careful consideration from us when it comes before us.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I do not like to press the matter I raised very much further, but I do feel a very short time later would have been too late. The Minister states with great justice, while recognising the conditions of the claims of such persons I have just mentioned, that it is not the intention to make commitments in the Bill. I think that is very just, and very right, but what I do urge the Minister is what I earlier urged, and this is entirely a separate matter; the Executive Council should make commitments to take power to deal with such cases when they arise. As I read the Bill, and as I read the Financial Resolution, these powers do not exist at the present time. In other words, if such cases hereafter have to be dealt with they would require entirely fresh legislation, whereas a very small change in the wording might leave it open in the future to deal with such cases without the necessity for such legislation. I think that that would be more expeditious as well as being more just.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to support the view, if I may, A Chinn Chomhairle, that at least the Minister would take powers in the Resolution, and ultimately in the Bill, to deal with cases of special hardship. I was proposing to ask the Dáil to agree to an amendment on the lines that have been mentioned by Deputy Figgis, and also to ask for amplification of the definition clause, the word "wound" to include illness contracted as a direct consequence of active service.

Judging by the Minister's statement he is not prepared to accept that, but at least it would be desirable that he should have power under the Resolution and under the Act to make provision for cases which are clearly attributable to service in the Army. Let me instance a case which I think is typical, the case of William Patridge, who prided in calling himself Volunteer Partridge. He fought in 1916; he was sentenced, imprisoned, ill-treated, and as a direct consequence, as can be clearly proved, of his ill-treatment, he died. Under the Bill I think his widow and dependants have no claim, but it is clearly a case where there ought to be a claim. While the Minister deprecates dealing with special cases, and I admit the undesirability of trying to argue from special cases to a general principle, nevertheless that is a good reason for getting power to deal with special cases, and the Bill does not provide for that power.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Resolution does not exclude such cases. The word "deceased" in the Resolution may be defined subsequently.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the Resolution does, because it really provides for "the payment of wound pensions and gratuities to wounded members of Oglaigh na hEireann."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Paragraph (b).

Mr. JOHNSON

"The payment of allowances and gratúities to the widows, children, dependants, and partial dependants of deceased members."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

"Deceased" may be defined subsequently. These cases may be excluded by the Bill, but not by the Resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON

Quite right. I beg your pardon.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Nevertheless the Resolution would preclude a reference to persons who may not yet be deceased, or who may not for a long time die, and yet who, at the present moment are removed by reason of the nature of their activities for this nation from the maintenance of those who have hitherto reasonably looked to them for that maintenance. In other words would we be precluded in the Committee Stage of this Bill from giving an interpretation to the word "wound" that might extend its ambit, so as to include, say, cases of consumption.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am afraid so.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I felt that myself, and that is why I am pressing the matter. I feel that once this Resolution is passed the thing has become too late, and it is while the Resolution is still before the Dáil that I am urging the Minister to consider this kind of case. There is one case that is very well known to him. I am not arguing special cases now. I am giving this case because I know there are four or five other cases of a like nature. There is one case well known to him, the case of a trusted officer of the Army who served very valiantly and very gallantly in the days of our war, but who at the present moment is merely holding on to life by the sheer power of his will. There are other cases of the kind. I know one case of a lad who at the present moment is dying in a sanatorium in Co. Dublin. These are two cases that I have in mind, and they can be multiplied. They are definitely cases of persons who are suffering from illness contracted while engaging in this war, just as definitely as any person who received a wound, in fact with far more injurious results. It is not the intention, I am sure, of the Bill to preclude such persons, but the Dáil is bound to preclude them if the Financial Resolution precludes them. Therefore, I urge that the terms of the Financial Resolution should be so extended that they are not precluded.

General MULCAHY

I hope it is not understood that any person suffering from an illness such as the Deputy has spoken of, and who is known to our knowledge to have been an old volunteer, neglected at the present moment. We have thrown open the medical establishments that we have for dealing with our present situation, to all men of that particular type; they have been taken into our convalescent homes and our hospitals, and they are being treated there.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

What about their dependants?

General MULCAHY

Nothing has been done with regard to their dependants. The problem is one that envisages such conditions that we are not prepared to accept the Deputy's suggestion that provision should be made for it in the particular Bill that is before us.

Motion put and agreed to.