Dáil Éireann debate -
Monday, 30 Jul 1923

Vol. 4 No. 20

DAIL IN COMMITTEE.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair at this stage.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 were agreed to and added to the Bill.

SECTION 4.

(1). If the Minister for Home Affairs certifies in respect of any person who is suffering from any disablement due to a wound received,

(a) That such person was at the time he received such wound a member of an organisation to which this section applies;

(b) That such person received such wound or injury while performing his duty as such member and without serious negligence or misconduct on his part; and

(c) That such person was, previous to the date of such certificate, discharged from such organisation as being medically unfit for further service therein,

the Minister aforesaid may with the sanction of the Minister for Finance grant to such person the like wound pension or gratuity, and, if a married man, the like further pension as could be granted to such person under Sections 1 and 2 of the Army Pensions Act, 1923 No. 26 of 1923), if he were an officer or a soldier (as the case may require) to whom a wound pension or gratuity or a further pension could be granted under these sections.

(2) If the Minister for Home Affairs certifies in respect of any person who was killed or who has receives a wound before the passing of this Act and has or shall have died within three years after receiving such wound or injury and solely in consequence thereof

(a) that such person was at the time he was killed or received such wound a member of an organisation to which this section applies; and

(b) that such person was killed or received such wound or injury while performing his duty as such member and without serious negligence or misconduct on his part,

the Minister aforesaid may, with the sanction of the Minister of Finance, grant to the widow, children, dependants or partial dependants of such person the like allowances and gratuities as could be granted to such widow, children, dependants or partial dependants under Section 7 of the Army Pensions Act, 1923, if such person were an officer or a soldier (as the case may require) to whose widow, children, dependants or partial dependants an allowance or gratuity could be granted under that section.

(3) Every pension granted under this section shall commence from the date on which the person to whom it was granted was or is discharged from the organisation of which he was or is a member and every allowance granted under this section shall commence from the date of the death of the person in respect of whom such allowance is payable or from such later date as the Minister for Home Affairs shall in any particular case appoint.

(4) Sections 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Army Pensions Act, 1923, and all regulations made by the Minister of Defence under Section 6 of that Act shall apply to pensions, allowances and gratuities granted under this section in the like manner as those sections and regulations apply to pensions, allowances and gratuities granted under that Act save that the word "Minister" in the said sections 5, 10 and 11 shall mean the Minister for Home Affairs, and the expression "Ministry of Defence" in the said Section 12 shall include the Ministry of Home Affairs.

(5) This section applies to those armed organisations specially raised, before the passing of this Act, by the Minister for Home Affairs for the maintenance of order or the protection of persons or property, under the respective designations of the Criminal Investigation Department, the Citizens' Defence Force, and the Protective Force.

(6) For the purpose of determining the rate of any wound pension or further pension or the amount of any allowance or gratuity to be granted under this section, the person to or in respect of whom the same is granted shall be deemed to have held the rank in the forces which shall be certified by the Minister for Home Affairs to correspond most closely to the rank held by such person in the organisation of which he was a member.

(7) All words and expressions used in this section which are also used in the Army Pensions Act, 1923, have the same meaning in this section as they respectively have in that Act, save that the word "wound" when used in relation to a member of an organisation to which this section applies means any wound or injury received by such member in the course of his duty."

The PRESIDENT

I beg to move the above Section.

MINISTER for DEFENCE (for Mr. Duggan)

I beg to move the following amendments in Sub-section (1), line 46, to insert immediately after the words "who is" the words "or shall be."

In Sub-section (1), line 47, to delete the word "received."

In Sub-section (1) (b), line 50, to delete the words "or injury."

Amendments agreed to.

General MULCAHY

I beg to move in Sub-section (2), line 2, to delete the word "was" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "has been, or shall be," and to insert immediately after the word "has" the words "or shall have," and in lines 2 and 3 to delete the words "before the passing of this Act."

The PRESIDENT

As the Sub-section stands it would mean a man suffering to-day or at the passing of the Act. This provides that the man should be injured after the passing of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

General MULCAHY

I move as an amendment in Sub-section (2) to delete the words "or injury" in line 4 and in lines 9 and 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

Before you put the question that the section as amended be agreed to I want to ask for further light upon Sub-section 5. The Minister for Finance, in introducing this Bill, and in reply to certain questions put to him, told us that the Protective Force referred to in sub-section (5) was a Force that had for its object the protection of property. The Citizens' Defence Force was a force that had to do with the protection of persons. We have some general knowledge of the Criminal Investigation Department, but I think before we pass away from this Section we ought to have some information about these two Forces. In passing this we are committing ourselves to pensions for members of a Force of which we know practically nothing. We do not know the extent of this Force. we do not know their work; we do not know how they are officered; what are their numbers; what is their pay, or what kind of commitments there will be when we are asked to admit them into the category of those who will receive pensions. I asked the Minister if he will, before we get away from this section, give us some details as to this Force. We know what a police force is. We know what the Civic Guard is, and what the D.M.P. Force is. We know something about the Criminal Investigation Department and its headquarters, but we do not know anything about these two special Forces. We learn now that they are under the control of the Minister for Home Affairs. Are they controlled from the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department? Are they a separate Force? Where is their headquarters? How are they officered? Do they wear uniforms? Do they carry with them any authorisation? Have they taken part in raids? Are they armed? There are many questions that might be asked, and questions which will need to be asked, if we are to get the necessary information about this force. I ask the Minister if he can go into little details as to this organisation before we are asked, to pass from this Section, which authorises the payment of pensions to those members of this Force who have been incapacitated.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I desire to support the request made by Deputy Johnson for some fuller information. With regard to this Sub-section (5), particularly with regard to the Force he spoke of, I wish to raise it, not in order to cover the ground that has already been taken, but because I think it is a very important question for the Dáil that is raised in a sub-section of this kind in this Bill, because the Dáil has got no information whatever with regard to the existence of this Force. Vague rumours have been circulated that such a Force exists, and matters were charged to them which were sometimes not very desirable, and I believed these rumours had no foundation in fact, and that there was no such Force in existence. It appears now there have been such Forces, namely, a Defence Force and Protective Force. Now, learning of them in this casual and incidental way by the introduction of this measure, we were requested to give statutory recognition without any definition of the place they are to fill and the work they are to do. Presumably if such a Force existed they have been covered by moneys voted somewhere. I have been looking through the Estimates, and no Estimate has been passed for the expense of such a Force as this. I would like to know if the Minister would let the Dáil know and have the fullest information with regard to them, and also let us know under what Minister they are, and under what Vote money has been allocated to them. He might also tell us how long they are to continue, and whether, in fact, they are still in existence. In any event, it is a very undesirable course of procedure that a Force of this kind should be given statutory recognition in this casual and incidental way. If it was necessary that this Force should be created, and one presumes such a necessity existed, or else it would hardly have been called into existence, surely the proper course would have been to have passed legislation by which they could be recognised, and not brought in parenthetically and incidentally in a sub-section. If we had passed this Bill without this information being elicited it would have been possible to have said that this Dáil had recognised them legislatively, because they were mentioned in a Bill passed by this Dáil, although this Dáil had no information before it as to their existence and foundation.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy will make some allowance, I am sure, for our difficulties in introducing legislation dealing with all these matters when he reviews what we have done and remembers the occasions that still more important engagements kept him absent from the Dáil. If he were here last week he would have heard, on Estimate 34, as much information as was available, or as we had to disclose regarding one of the particular bodies in question, the Protective Defence Force, and as regards the other Force, he would have also heard that when we found it necessary to organise this particular Force which is for a dual purpose, namely, of protecting citizens and protecting their property, that we had no other means of calling upon money for that purpose except out of the Secret Service Vote. I do not remember whether I mentioned at the time that out of the Secret Service Vote of £6,500 a sum of £6,050 had been already spent on maintaining this particular Force. The reason that the money had been spent out of that Vote was that the Estimates had already been prepared, and if we were to adopt any course other than the one we did, it would have required a Supplementary Estimate, or the money could not have been paid out of that particular item. His mind, I am sure, would be eased if he had examined paragraph (b) in the Secret Service Estimate dealing with this matter. It reads:—“Provision for this Force has been made for a period of six months.” I presume that will set his conscience and his mind at rest with regard to that particular item. With regard to the Citizens' Defence Force, I am not in a position to say at this moment how much longer it may be necessary to keep that Force in being. I should hope that it will not be very long, but I am not going to undertake to say what the period should be. All I know is that there has been a reduction in that Force, and I presume that, as far as possible, the members of that Force will be drafted into some of the other statutory Forces, if I may use that term. It is unreasonable to ask us when that transference may take place. We have not got statutory authority for that force at all, but we have as much statutory authority for it as we have had for the Army. The Army is only being legalised now by a Bill, and I am sure, if I were in a position to inform the Deputy how much property had been saved by reason of the recruitment of these two Forces, and of how many lives had been saved, he would be satisfied, perhaps, with the work they have done. As far as I know, at least one member of this Force has been killed at least one, and possibly two. In one case where property was being guarded by a member of this Force it was subjected to attack from the Irregulars and the place was bombed from the outside. As the unfortunate man opened the door the bomb exploded and he was killed. He died doing his duty as his duty, and I am certain, from what I know of the work of the organisation, and what it has done, that the rumours that have been started regarding it are absolutely baseless. The Force, as far as I know, has been recruited from old members of Oglach na hEireann, some of whom would not have passed a medical examination. I do not know much about these cases, because it is not in my Department, but in the Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I think it is scarcely fair, having regard to the work that these men do, that there should be any suspicion attached to them. The Deputy knows as well as I do, that the members of that organisation, the old members of Oglach na hEireann, were very considerate in any public duties they had to perform, and because of the fact that out of the small number in the Force there has recently been one man killed and a certain number wounded, it would not be possible for us to give these men any pensions unless they were paid out of the Secret Service Vote, which might at any moment cease, and therefore there would not be a Statutory liability or any responsibility on the part of the State. For that reason we put them in here in this particular Vote.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister said there is only a small number of men in this Force. I would like to know the number, and whether they are under C.I.D. directorship or Army directorship. I would also like to know where their headquarters is, and I do not think it is too much to ask for precise information in connection with the Force whose members we are asked to vote pensions to.

The PRESIDENT

I am speaking from recollection, and, as I have stated, the Department is not under my direction, but as well as I remember the Force when formed was composed of 100 or 150 men. The number, I believe, is now down to 20 or 25. As regards its control, I believe it was, to some extent at any rate, under the control of the Criminal Investigation Department.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Is the President referring to the Citizen Defence Force or to the Protective Force?

The PRESIDENT

The Citizen Defence Force.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister give us this assurance, whether we can get it in the Dáil or not, that the Minister responsible will give the Seanad the information that is sought for?

The PRESIDENT

I do not know what question there is that I have not answered that the Deputy wishes to have information on. If his question be as regards numbers or control, or as regards the officers, then I say, Yes. I will get the information and give it to the Seanad.

Mr. JOHNSON

I asked some specific questions as to whether this Force was under the direction of the C.I.D., and if not, what direction it is under, and whether it is responsible to the Minister for Home Affairs or to the Army?

The PRESIDENT

It is responsible to Home Affairs or to the Army?

Mr. JOHNSON

Are these Forces under the C.I.D. or under the D.M.P., or are they a separate establishment altogether? To whom do they report? Where are their headquarters? What are the numbers of the respective Forces? Are they self-contained or are they subordinate to any other section of the Defence Forces, police or military?

The PRESIDENT

I do not know that I would be in a position to recommend the Minister for Home Affairs to give the name of the officer they are responsible to if they are not responsible to Oriel House. I think the Deputy will agree that as regards a service of this kind it must be expected that a reasonable reticence should be maintained in regard to the service.

Mr. JOHNSON

What Vote does their pay come out of?

The PRESIDENT

The Citizen Defence Force is paid out of the Secret Service Vote.

Question put: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

"To insert immediately before Section 5 a new section as follows:—

5. (1) The Minister for Finance may from time to time by Order authorise the grant of pensions, allowances or gratuities to persons who resigned or were dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary on or after the 1st day of April, 1916, and before the 11th day of July, 1921, and whose resignations or dismissals from that force are certified under the hands of the Ministers for Home Affairs and Finance to have been caused by their national sympathies, and may by any such Order regulate and appoint the rates and scales of such pensions, allowances or gratuities, and the conditions under which the same are to be payable, and may by any such order prescribe the penalties for any fraudulent conduct in relation to an application for any such pension, allowance or gratuity.

(2) No Order made under this Section shall come into operation unless and until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann, and when considering any such resolution Dáil Eireann shall duly consider any recommendation which shall have been previously made by Seanad Eireann in respect of such Order.

(3) No person shall be entitled to receive any pension, allowance or gratuity under this section unless money for the payment thereof shall have been voted by the Oireachtas."

I think the amendment explains itself.

Mr. JOHNSON

On this amendment, before dealing with the general question, I want to draw attention to the latter part of the first paragraph:—"And may by any such order prescribe the penalties for any fraudulent conduct in relation to any application for any such pension, allowance or gratuity." That, I think, goes beyond what should be allowed by an order. I would imagine that the ordinary law against endeavouring to obtain money by false pretences is quite strong enough without empowering the Minister for Finance to prescribe such penalties in an order. I wonder whether sufficient consideration has been given to this sub-section. I think it is too much power to authorise in this way, to give the Minister power to make an order prescribing the penalty, and I think the ordinary laws should be made applicable to any such cases. I would ask the Minister whether he thinks that that part of the amended section is really necessary or not.

The PRESIDENT

In the absence of any particular information from the Attorney-General I should say that in such cases there are prescribed penalties for infringing any pensions laws, but this is a new pensions law, and it is quite possible that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of it, that it might be open to abuse, and as such there might be a difficulty in prosecuting a person who had taken advantage of it and by fraudulent misrepresentation made a case for a pension, so that I take it the reason was that, it being special legislation dealing with a special class, unless provision were made for imposing such penalties it would not be possible to prosecute a person for making fraudulent representations in connection with it.

Mr. DAVIN

I take it that the insertion of this sub-section means that the men who have been looking forward to a pension in view of previous promises will receive the pension immediately the Bill is passed with this clause inserted, which we hope will be in the very near future. I understand that the number of claims submitted in connection with this particular clause is something around 1,100, of which 415 have already been rejected, so that it appears that the Committee, or whoever is responsible for the rejection of these particular claims, are taking reasonable precautions to see that, at any rate, there are no fraudulent claims passed.

The PRESIDENT

I hope so.

Mr. DAVIN

My objection is to the insertion of the date, making it impossible that any pension can be allowed in respect of the period after the 11th July, 1921. I understand that out of the 415 claims rejected 33 were considered as outside the scope of the terms of reference. I have information that there are cases, genuine cases, of victimisation by the authorities who controlled the Royal Irish Constabulary after the date mentioned in the clause. I also know that the Minister for Home Affairs is personally aware of one or two very genuine cases of that kind, and I think that this date should be so extended or amended as to make provision for any promise made to these men in July, 1920. In July, 1920, the Sinn Fein organisation issued a circular to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary putting it up to them that, in the interests of their country, they should refuse to serve England, and that by doing so it would be impossible for the British to carry on the Government of this country any longer. I realise, and I am sure everyone else does, that if the Royal Irish Constabulary had responded to that appeal, no matter how many British soldiers were in this country, it would have been impossible for them to carry on the British administration. That circular stated: "Every man of Irish birth should get a chance of becoming a loyal citizen of the Irish Republic and of earning an honest living in Ireland; and that this is true even of those Irishmen who are so unfortunate as to be at present engaged in doing the work of the enemy in Ireland as members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and that many of those men joined without a clear understanding of what they were doing." This is the sentence which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister: "We desire it now to be understood that those who resign will not be regarded as enemies of Ireland, but will be granted every opportunity to make up for the past, and every effort will be made by Sinn Fein to obtain employment for them." That was the promise made by the Sinn Fein organisation, with the backing of the Irish nation. Roughly 1,100 men responded to that appeal, and since that time many of these men are living on the charity of their relatives, who are good enough to keep them. This clause makes provision for some of them to get compensation for the sacrifices they made. I am personally aware of the fact, and it has been brought to my notice, that many of the men who resigned have been unable to get employment of any kind in this country, and it seems to be the policy of the big employers to refuse to give any employment to men who resigned in response to that appeal, whereas many of the disbanded Royal Irish Constabulary are filling positions in the big business establishments, and even in the Government service. I understand in the Government service that some of the disbanded men are being employed, whereas many of the men who resigned in response to the circular are still out of work. I know a case myself where some of the resigned men are employed on the North Wall as Customs watchers at £2 4s. 7d. per week, where pensioned men of the British service are employed at other similar work at £2 17s. 10d. per week. I think that is not the treatment that the people who met that appeal expected from those who are now in a position to give effect to the promises that they made. I have no brief for any individual member of that body, but I think they are being badly and harshly treated both by the employers, who probably are opposed to them for what they did at the time and the Government, for having so long delayed in giving effect to the promises made by their associates in July, 1920. I suggest to the Minister, in the first instance, that the date 11th July should be extended to make provision for whatever cases the Minister for Finance might feel to be reasonable, because of victimisation which took place after the Truce. There is another aspect of the case which I also desire to draw his attention to, and that is the case of short service men in the Royal Irish Constabulary who responded to this appeal and resigned.

I understand the number of such cases was 184, and simply because they had only two or three or four years service they were turned down, solely because they were short-service men. Look at it from the other point of view, and see how England treated the Black and Tans she recruited for doing her work at the time. These men have been given pensions or gratuities, and I suggest that any men who resigned in response to the appeal made at the time, whether they be short or long service men, should get the conditions they were promised, and that they should be treated not less favourably than the men who served England and fought against Ireland up to their disbandment. We have in the superannuation allowances in the Estimates a sum of £1,350,000 voted away for men who served England up to the time of disbandment. I suggest that the amount that would meet all the cases reasonably and fairly that could be proved would not amount to one-sixth of that sum. I think that they should be met in the spirit of the promises made at that time, and that any man who made genuine sacrifices should not be deprived of the operation of this particular clause. There are a few, unfortunately, of the men who resigned from the Royal Irish Constabulary who have since died, and I want to know in what way their dependants, if any, would be treated under the application of this clause. Also, there are a number of people who have sided, apparently, with the Irregulars. I would like to have a clear ruling from the Minister as to whether or not they are debarred from the application of this clause. The pension, or whatever is given under the terms of this sub-section, would be given to men for a certain action they took between certain times. I want to know from the Minister if those who are now what is termed die-hards will be debarred from the application of this particular clause.

The PRESIDENT

Sure.

Mr. DAVIN

As I said in the beginning, I have no brief for any particular individual, but I am personally aware in my own area of three cases of men with families who resigned from the R.I.C. in response to the call I have read, and it is very hard to think that men who took such a patriotic action should be starving. I trust that this particular clause will be given effect to immediately the Bill has passed, and that whatever pension or back money is due to these men will be given to them as soon as it is possible for the particular Department to make all the necessary detailed arrangements.

The PRESIDENT

There is no power taken under this section to give anything to widows, and I certainly will not pay the pension to any person who has been in arms, or otherwise seriously responsible, in connection with the late outbreak. It ought to be borne in mind that if we entertain all the claims for compensation in respect of what occurred here in this country for the last six or seven years, we would have a large proportion of the population living on pensions. We cannot afford to do that. A large number of men who gave good services will not draw any pensions, and have not got any jobs under the Government. These men who joined the constabulary and withdrew from it did not do a highly patriotic thing; it was their duty purely and simply, without any patriotism in it at all. I do not know that they would be treated better in any country, or as well. I do not see that I can change the date from the 11th July, and I do not think it is reasonable to ask that that should be done. From that date and for some time previous it was known the result was no longer in doubt, and there are a great number of people anxious to jump off when they see the result is no longer in doubt. If there are men with two or three years' service who left the R.I.C. they will not get pensions. If there are such, are not there a great many young men in the country who never did anything against their country's best interests and are in the same position?

Mr. DAVIN

On a point of explanation, I merely ask the President is he prepared to give effect to the promise given by the late General Collins and the Sinn Fein organisation when they asked these men to resign from the Royal Irish Constabulary?

The PRESIDENT

I do not know how I can give effect to every promise made by Sinn Fein. First, undertakings were given for which there was no statutory authority. I am prepared as far as possible to redeem every promise given by General Collins. What I mean is, that when he gave that promise a very different state of affairs was present before the country to what is now. At that time you were in a normal sound, financial position. Circumstances have changed, and it is not really too much to ask men to work for a living. I think we have met them as fairly as we could in the circumstances, and we have redeemed the promises that have been made to them.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

The President, I think, forgets that a certain number of these men have not, on account of their previous association with this particular Force, been able to get employment, and numbers of them are still unemployed, and probably will be unemployed for a very considerable length of time. The President says that there was not anything particularly patriotic in their resigning from the posts that they occupied. Perhaps not, but they occupied posts which I do not think they were induced to occupy on the ground that their occupation of them would be a disservice to the Irish nation. They occupied these posts because they were an avenue of employment, most of them, and for no other reason. At a certain stage in the struggle between Great Britain and Ireland it was thought that a very considerable service would be done to the side of the Irish forces by their evacuation of these posts. Many of the men rose to the greatest heights of patriotism, and they did service, and good service, to the National forces, and in a personal sense a disservice to themselves when they carried it out. If every young man in the country had simply done his duty, not to speak of rising to the heights of patriotism at all, the situation in Ireland would have been solved much earlier than the 11th July, 1921, or the 6th December, 1921.

I do not say that they rose to the greatest heights of patriotism, but I do say they did considerable service, and that it took a considerable amount of both moral and physical courage for these men to take the action they did, especially men who had wives and children or other people dependent on them. Another Minister—not the Minister for Finance—has pointed out quite truthfully and properly that certain men who remained in the service took big risks morally and materially, and that perhaps they did as good service to the Nation as if they came out. They certainly did good service. As many as a thousand of them on the call of the National organisations threw over the allegiance they had entered into for one reason or another. That was a big factor in bringing about the state of affairs out of which the Saorstát has arisen. Nobody would recognise that better than the President if he found that, comparatively speaking, one-tenth of the present National Forces were affected by certain calls and changed their allegiance to another side. There is another point that I want raised; it is a bit ticklish, but I think it ought to be raised and faced squarely. It seems to me a fair reading of this section that men who are taking part in the revolt against the Saorstát would be penalised not only for the period of the revolt but for the whole period. I will say frankly and straightly that I do not think that that should be so. In the British service and in other services I know that members of certain forces who commit certain offences are deprived, during the period in which they are undergoing punishment for those offences, of their pension and such rights. I know many cases of members of such forces who joined the old I.R.A. and were deprived of those rights for the period of their imprisonment, but they had no difficulty at all in getting back their pensions when they resumed their ordinary avocations. I do not go so far as to say that those who have taken part in the armed resistance to the State, if there are any such, should be entitled to the receipt of their pensions for the period during which they were taking part in any such resistance, but I do not think that they should be penalised for a period prior to that. They are not in the position exactly of either the Army or the Police Force a year or two hence when we will have regularised all these things. They are not in the position of members of such forces a year or two hence, or rather ex-members of such Forces, who then may be in receipt of pension and commit offences and forfeit the pension for that period. That is not exactly the position at all. You are coming along at a fairly late hour in the day to give certain pensions to these people, and I do not think that it would be strictly just or good policy to make that penalisation stretch back over several years.

The PRESIDENT

If I were concerned with the question of policy I suppose I would agree to give all these fellows pensions, but as I am concerned with the justice of the case I do not see my way to do it. I do say it would be unreasonable to ask people who have stood by the State, who have contributed towards the upkeep of the State, and who will have to contribute for many years, to grant pensions to persons who have placed such a shocking load of debt on the country and who have put back the hands of the clock for years. There is a tribe in this country as well as in other countries who will be perpetually in revolt. That revolt is their happy and advanced method of making their protest. We want to stop that. I think it is only reasonable that it should be stopped, and that these people should do honest work for the State in the future. It would take any one of those men the rest of his natural life to do atonement for the damage that has been done to the country during the last twelve or eighteen months. From that point of view alone I will not recommend the Dáil to consider for a moment the claims of any such persons for pension. When we consider how many people there are on our side who have rendered good services for whom we can make no claim, and some of whom have not benefited in their health by reason of the anxious times they went through and the hard work they did for some years past—when we can do absolutely nothing for them, to think of these people coming along, having participated in, you might say, two rebellions, and to benefit by both, is too much. This resignation of R.I.C. men would have been of some use if a large number of them had come out—say, four-fifths or five-sixths, or certainly more than half. As it was, it was very little or no use.

Mr. JOHNSON

That was not the fault of the men who came out.

The PRESIDENT

It was their fault to this extent. While we had to persuade the rest of the country to make a big claim and a big fight, if they had exerted themselves in a smaller area and with a very much smaller number of people to deal with, they could have persuaded a great many more, but that did not happen. This particular body was certainly a body of fine physique, and the claim ought not to be put up that young men of fine physique should get pensions. I have not examined the question closely, but I have not got very much consideration for men who, after two or three years' service, look for a pension. Mark the dates—1916 to 1921. I do not know that there are many men who paid the slightest attention to Irish politics who would have been inclined to join the R.I.C. during that particular period. If the claim be on national grounds, they should have seen the light earlier. So far as the claims that have come in are concerned, they got very careful, fair and just consideration. I think we have dealt with them in such a manner as redeems any promise that was made.

Mr. DAVIN

Is not it right to say that the men who remained on in the R.I.C. up to the time of the disbandment are also being paid by the Irish people?

The PRESIDENT

Yes. They carried out their contract with their paymasters, and they are getting the benefit of it. Their paymasters staked that claim in respect of them; it is part of the bargain, over which you or I have got no control whatever. It is part of the Treaty, and we are bound to abide by it.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

Those gentlemen who fulfilled their contract, it now seems from the President's statement, were quite right when they told the men who went out on behalf of the nation that they were damn fools. They were the men who were largely instrumental in preventing a number of R.I.C. men from coming out on the side of the nation. I wish to join issue with the President that it was only a small proportion that came out, and that that proportion was of no service to the nation.

The PRESIDENT

I did not say of no service; I said of no vital service.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

I beg to join issue with the President on that, because, if it did nothing else, it effectively put a stop to recruiting for the R.I.C. Recruiting within Ireland for the R.I.C. stopped, to a very great extent, from the time these men commenced to throw up their jobs, and the British authorities were forced to seek recruits outside Ireland. I put it again to the President, and I put it to the Minister for Defence, that if one-tenth of the present National forces were so affected by anti-Saorstát propaganda that they threw up their allegiance, it would be a very considerable service indeed to the forces operating against the Saorstát.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to know if this problem is being considered properly. To say that the present Saorstát forces are to be compared with the R.I.C., and that if the same percentage withdrew from these forces as withdrew or resigned from the old R.I.C., is certainly not making a parallel——

Mr. JOHNSON

It is merely the moral effect of such resignations that we are considering.

The PRESIDENT

The question is asked: What was the moral effect on the forces? Does anybody realise that in the case of the R.I.C. there was any effect?

Mr. JOHNSON

In the sense of disintegration?

The PRESIDENT

It is stated that a tenth of the R.I.C. resigned. It was not even a tenth, or anything approaching it.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

What was the number?

The PRESIDENT

According to the statement read by Deputy Davin, it was 1,094.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

Out of roughly 10,000.

The PRESIDENT

That is about ten per cent. The question is, how many years did these 1,094 cover, and were they all resignations by reason of this spiritual or patriotic call? Was the moral suasion exercised by certain other active members of the community without any effect at all? I am inclined to think that it had just as much effect as the patriotic call, and I am inclined to think that, so far as service was concerned, the men who remained on at great personal risk, and who were of certain service, were much more valuable. But I put the question on another ground altogether. Here you have a body of young men of splendid physique looking for pensions from the State, without having rendered any real service beyond "withdrawing from the ranks of the enemy," to use the parlance of the past few years. I say that we redeemed our promises by the provision for an examination that we made of these cases. And I do not think this matter ought to be pressed.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

The President knows that it is not possible to draw exact parallels. Like Deputy Davin, I hold no brief for these men, except I believe that they did render certain services and that those services were considerable by reason of the effect they had on the people with whom they had a contract. I want to remind the Dáil that others withdrew or were dismissed from the employment of those with whom they had somewhat similar contracts, and efforts have been made, and successfully made, to restore them to something like their original status. The President knows that that has not been possible in the case of the ex-R.I.C. men. He ought to know, too, that numbers of them have not been able to get employment. Up to the present they have been living from hand to mouth, subsisting on the charity of their friends and neighbours and those who understand their position. Unlike those who are dismissed or resigned from other services, they cannot re-join any force similar to that in which they were previously engaged. They cannot, for instance, join the Civic Guard. There are many reasons why they are unemployed, although they are men of fine physique. One of the reasons is that it is difficult, unless a man has a letter from General Collins or from a Minister of the first or second Dáil, to persuade the general body of people, who do not look into the nice points of things, that he is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, because the old prejudice against the R.I.C. still prevails.

These are considerations which are not taken into account by the President at all, but they are considerations which count. If they were like Civil Servants in other Departments they would have a chance of restoration, as many of them thought they would have, to a similar position. Most of them—I have not come in contact with them recently, but I did come in contact with them during the period of the resignations and for some time afterwards—had an idea that they would be provided for, not perhaps by pensions, not to lead an idler's life on the pensions of the State, but that, if the cause for which they thought they were working turned out successfully, they would have a chance of restoration to a post similar to that which they had occupied. They were foolish in that. Their colleagues who had not even the grain of patriotism which drove these men out, and who refused to be persuaded either by the moral suasion of the National movement or by the personal appeal of General Collins, were far wiser children in their generation. They depended on those with whom they made their contract, even if they were beaten, to take good care of their interests. They were looked after and their interests were safeguarded by those who had entered into the contract with them. There was at least a moral contract between the ex-R.I.C. men and the Irish nation, and it is up to the Parliament of the Irish nation to see that that contract is carried out.

The PRESIDENT

To what extent have we failed in that contract? It surely is not put up as a breach of the contract to include persons who resigned after the 11th July, 1921. Is that the breach of contract?

Mr. DAVIN

When I was pressing for an extension of the period beyond the 11th July I had in mind the case of a couple of men who had not resigned from the R.I.C. and were actively cooperating with members of the I.R.A. previous to the Truce, and these men were found to be doing that work, and they were deliberately victimised by the authorities of the R.I.C. I would be prepared to put into the hands of the President or of the Minister for Home Affairs cases of that kind where I could give clear proof to the Government of victimisation, where these men were let down. If the date 11th July is insisted on it will debar from the operations of the clause these particular cases. Some of these were married men, who tried, and tried hard. to get work, and could not get it, and now, under the terms of this clause, they will be deprived of anything for the sacrifices that they made. That was why I was so surprised to find the date was definitely laid down, because I am aware that the Minister for Home Affairs had personal knowledge of one or two of the cases.

The PRESIDENT

I will undertake, if such cases are proved, and if I return here, to deal with these cases. But I do object to changing the date. If there were genuine cases of victimisation after the 11th July I am prepared to look into them.

Mr. DAVIN

I am prepared to leave these cases in the Minister's hands.

The PRESIDENT

We had a Committee of two officials—one from the Ministry of Finance and one from the Ministry of Home Affairs—with the Chairman a well-known Dublin citizen. There were something like 1,100 cases investigated. Six hundred were passed and five hundred were rejected. Reports were considered, and in certain cases, not all, individual claimants were interviewed. I think, from my experience, that where 1,100 cases were considered, and 600 out of that number passed, that it is a very fair proportion. But if there are such cases as the Deputy states, in which there has been an obvious injustice, I am prepared to consider that afterwards, but I could not make provision for dealing with it now, and I think it would be unwise to hold up the Bill for two or three cases when I give that undertaking.

Mr. DAVIN

I am not blaming the Committee that went into these cases, because I realise the terms of reference were such that they could not do anything else. But the case I put is that they should be considered apart from the hard and fast rule as regards the date laid down in the Bill. I accept the Minister's assurance and will give him particulars of the cases, and I am prepared to leave them in his hands.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is nothing in the new section which would make it necessary that cases which did not come within the view of the Minister as acceptable must be pensioned. If the section remains as it is, limiting the date to the 11th July, claims which might turn out to be good claims could not be introduced. Therefore, to give a chance for cases of the kind it would be necessary to alter the date, and the doing so would not make it inevitable that these persons who resigned and did not come within the scope of the present promise would necessarily receive pensions.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

I urge the point made by Deputy Johnson, because the section is permissive.

The PRESIDENT

It always is in connection with pensions.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

There is no obligation on the Minister to deal with cases after the 11th July, but if he fixes some other date the section would permit him to deal with them. I doubt if the section as it stands would permit him to deal with cases after the 11th July.

The PRESIDENT

As far as I can learn, we have received no letter or communication in regard to any particular grievance outside the terms of reference. The terms of reference have been before them for some time, and no objections have been made. I think it is unreasonable of these men to wait until the Bill is before us to put forward a case like this.

Mr. DAVIN

I do not think that they waited. Their patience has been exhausted.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister say that he will not agree to any extension even to allow these cases, which he might agree ought to be dealt with, to be brought in? Under the present form they cannot be brought in.

The PRESIDENT

What date do you suggest?

Mr. JOHNSON

I would say three months up to the 1st September.

The PRESIDENT

Then, if we include up to the 1st September, it is to be understood that we are to be confined to three or four cases that the Deputy brought before us.

Mr. DAVIN

Some of the cases are before the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr. JOHNSON

I really cannot understand why there should be any objection made to the date of the Treaty being accepted, because you are not compelled by this agreement to give pensions to any person. It is all subject to certification in the end by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Finance. All we ask is that it be made possible for these Ministers to be satisfied in regard to particular cases, and that being satisfied they will have power to make grants in individual cases. I would ask the President if he is prepared to accept the 6th December, 1921, instead of the 11th July, 1921?

The PRESIDENT

I can only accept that on conditions. The first condition is that no other cases except those mentioned by Deputy Davin are to be introduced. As regards the cases that have already been turned down, I am not, so to speak, going to open the door for them again.

Mr. JOHNSON

As I have pointed out, it is within the option of the two Ministers to consider any particular case.

The PRESIDENT

Very well. I accept the date, 6th December, 1921, on the condition, however, that only these three or four cases mentioned by Deputy Davin are to be considered.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister knows that we cannot put any conditions into a Bill.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Question put: "That the new Sub-section, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Agreed.

Mr. DUGGAN

In view of the fact that the amendment which has just been accepted enlarges the scope of the Bill, it will necessarily mean that the Title will have to be altered. The proper procedure, I understand, now is to pass over Amendments 7 and 8, and to move Amendment 9. I accordingly move Amendment 9: "To insert in line 10 immediately after the word `Eireann,' the words `and to make provision for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities to certain former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.' "

Mr. FITZGIBBON

I suggest that this amendment be made to read: "To authorise the payment of pensions," etc., instead of using the words "to make provision for the payment of pensions," etc., because I suggest "to make provision" sounds as if they were going to be compulsory. I understood from the Minister for Finance that in accepting an amendment to the section it was entirely within the option of himself or the Minister for Home Affairs to decide whether those cases should be heard at all or not. The phrase "to make provision" sounds like expressing or indicating that they are to do these things. I understood that the Ministers were to have an option in making grants in such cases, and for that reason I think the amendment should read "to authorise," instead of "to make provision for."

Mr. DUGGAN

There is no objection to the alteration suggested by Deputy FitzGibbon.

Question put: "That the amendment to the Title be altered to read, "and to authorise the payment of pensions, etc.

Agreed.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.