asked the Minister for Defence if he will cause inquiries to be made into the statement of Mrs. Julia Kealy, 18a Basin Street, Dublin, widow of ex-Volunteer Edward Kealy; if he is aware that Mrs. Kealy states that her husband died on 4th October, 1923, as a result of injuries received in a motor accident at the Curragh Camp, and that she received no pay, pension or allowance since 4th April, 1924.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIM OF VOLUNTEER'S WIDOW.
Inquiries have been made into the case of Mrs. Kealy, who claimed under the Army Pensions Act, 1923, in respect of the death of her husband. The claim is not admissible under the Act inasmuch as her husband's death was due to malignant disease of the stomach, and not to the injuries referred to by the Deputy.
Mr. BYRNE
Can the Minister say whether he proposes in the near future to give dependents who are applicants for compensation for accidents sustained by men who served in the Army any hearing in order to prove the cases and produce documents to show that death was due to the accident?
I do not think the question arises, because we say this man's death was not due to the accident—it was due to disease of the stomach.
Mr. BYRNE
If it can be proved by the doctors that the accident aggravated that disease and brought about his death at an earlier period than it would have taken place in ordinary circumstances, is the claimant in such circumstances not entitled to some consideration by the Minister or his Department? May I say that the Minister has treated all these accident cases in the same manner—thrown them on the scrap heap?
Every consideration has been given to cases that came before my Department. The Deputy always brings up the most peculiar cases that it is possible for any Deputy to bring. I do not know where he gets them from. I think everyone with a peculiar case must go to Deputy Byrne, because I do not find them coming from anybody else. We have given every consideration to every case that has come up. It does not matter who the person was or in what unit he served. The cases that Deputy Byrne brings up get the same consideration as the cases brought by other Deputies.
Mr. BYRNE
The Minister is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. I am entitled to ask if he has given consideration to these cases. What is there to be afraid of in allowing those people the opportunity of going before some civilian tribunal and producing their doctors to prove their cases? You have denied them that right under the Army Pensions Act. You say they are not entitled to pensions and you will not allow them to go before a court for workmen's compensation. Under the Constitution they are entitled to some consideration.
The Deputy has made one speech, and that is sufficient.
Mr. BYRNE
The Minister was allowed to make a speech.
Deputy Byrne is the most successful speechmaker at question time in the House.
Mr. BYRNE
I have been treated most discourteously by the Minister. He was allowed to do so by you.
Deputy Byrne has been allowed the greatest latitude in the matter of asking supplementary questions.
May I ask a supplementary question?
Is it on question 20?
Yes. May I ask whether it is the intention of the Minister to introduce a Bill providing pensions for people who met with accidents and who do not come within the ordinary provisions of the Pensions Act?
That is a separate question.