Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Jan 1927

Vol. 18 No. 1

ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. - ARMY PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. Hughes)

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to say at the outset that the delay in bringing the Bill forward has mainly arisen from the exceptional difficulties encountered in determining the manner in which the pension proposals relating to disease should be dealt with.

Apart from certain specific amendments of the Army Pensions Act of 1923, the main proposals of this Bill are for the grant of pensions in respect of disabilities arising from disease in the period up to the 1st October, 1924; pensions and gratuities for wounds in the period from the date on which active service conditions were held to cease, until the date of the constitution of the Forces, viz., from the 1st October, 1923, to 1st October, 1924; pensions and gratuities in respect of wounds received in the period from the constitution of the Defence Forces on 1st October, 1924, onwards; and allowances or gratuities for dependants.

The question of granting pensions in respect of disease attributable to service was considered when the Army Pensions Act of 1923 was being drafted, and it was then held that the difficulties to be encountered in associating a disability arising from disease with service were so great that it was decided not to pursue that aspect of pension legislation at that time.

Since then there has been pressure for pension legislation in respect of disease, and a Committee was appointed to make recommendations in that regard and on other pension suggestions. In that Committee's report, it was stated that no abstract reason could be seen why the grant of pensions, allowances and gratuities should be confined to cases where death or disability is the direct result of wounds and injuries, but the Committee went on to say that the difficulties in determining that the disease was in fact contracted during, and attributable to, service would in many cases be insurmountable.

Mr. JOHNSON

What was that Committee?

Mr. HUGHES

A Departmental Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

Was there any report of that Committee submitted to the House?

Mr. HUGHES

No, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON

Should not a report be laid upon the Table of the House if it is quoted from?

Mr. HUGHES

It was a Departmental Committee for the purpose of advising the Minister.

Mr. JOHNSON

I submit that if the Minister is quoting from a report the whole of that report should be available for the Deputies of this House.

Mr. HUGHES

I am not quoting from a report. I am merely mentioning the fact that a Committee was set up by the Minister to advise him on certain aspects of pension legislation, and the report was to himself. The Committee went on to say that——

Mr. JOHNSON

Is not that a quotation?

Mr. HUGHES

I am giving the Deputy the advice the Minister got from people that he asked, and brought together for the purpose of giving him that advice, as to what he should put into or leave out of the Bill.

Major COOPER

Is the Minister quoting from the report?

Mr. HUGHES

No.

Major COOPER

Is it not the established parliamentary practice, when a Minister quotes from a report, that that report should be laid upon the Table of the House, to be available in its entirety to all or any members who wish to consult it?

Mr. HUGHES

I am not purporting to quote from a report. I am purporting to give to the House the views of certain people brought together to advise the Minister. That report was not printed or intended to be printed. The Committeee was brought together in this case, as in many other cases where a Minister sets up a Committee to give him advice; that is what was done in this case. I am simply giving the views of the Committee as expressed to the Minister.

Major COOPER

Has the Minister accepted the advice of those advisers, and if so, will he not make himself responsible for it and say " this is my opinion?"

Mr. HUGHES

I will make myself responsible for everything in the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

On a point of order, the Minister is obviously hiding behind a Committee's report of which we know nothing. If he comes forward and says " I believe this, I believe that, and I believe the other," then we take it he is responsible for the statement. He is now saying the Committee says so and so to him, and we know nothing about the Committee or their report, and I submit it is not in order.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Cooper stated what he believed to be the parliamentary practice. He said the practice was that when a Minister quotes from a departmental report, the report in full should be furnished to the House. It is, I think, a sound practice when a Minister quotes from a document that a request may be made for the document and the document should, normally, be furnished to the House. When Deputy Cooper says that if a Minister quotes a departmental report it necessarily follows that the departmental report should be given to the House, I do not entirely agree. The Minister does appear to be quoting from a document.

Mr. HUGHES

No, sir. I am not quoting from a document.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

Could not the Minister say he received advice from his Department?

Mr. HUGHES

That is what I am saying.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think it is hardly advisable for the Minister to quote from the Committee if he is not prepared to give the Committee's full report to the House. I think we can leave it at that. The word " quotation" has been used. I recommend it to the Minister.

Mr. HUGHES

Thanks; we will leave the rest of the sentence unsaid. It is known that there are cases where it can be established that the disease disability did in fact arise from service in the Volunteers, the Citizen Army, or in the Forces, and it was decided to bring in legislation to cover such of these cases as disclosed extreme hardship.

In this matter of disease disability it must be remembered that a pension can only be granted in respect of a disability clearly due to service. It does not follow that every disability arising in service was due to that service, and an applicant for disablement pension must be able to show not only that he is suffering from a disability which he had not before entering the service, but also that the disability is due to that service. It must also be borne in mind that the conditions of subsequent civil life may have produced ailments akin to those set up by service, or may have materially worsened disabilities which owe their origin to that service.

In considering this whole matter the Government were faced on the one hand with the fact that in the struggle for national independence and in the subsequent effort which had to be made to vindicate the people's authority, many sacrifices were called for and made, and on the other, that it would be acting beyond the country's financial resources to provide financial compensation for the vast majority of these sacrifices. We recognise that loss of health is the greatest sacrifice, but even here we have to cut our cloth according to our measure, and much as we should like to be able to deal with all cases of loss of health, we cannot do so. The most we can do is to alleviate, in some manner, the sufferings of those who have lost health to such an extent as to be almost totally incapable to provide for themselves. Moreover, it was felt that a wound was a definitely ascertainable fact which could be established beyond any doubt. The origin and originating cause of disease, particularly the chronic forms of disease, are always doubtful and nearly impossible to establish definitely. In all these circumstances it is felt that a minimum degree of disability in respect of disease should be fixed.

The next important feature in the Bill is that it in effect carries on the Army Pensions Act of 1923 from the date on which Active Service conditions were held to have ceased, that date being 30/9/1923, until the date of the constitution of the Forces on the 1/10/1924. The Army Pensions Act of 1923 covered only cases of wounds, etc., arising in the Active Service period. Many woundings and injuries, however, occurred in the year following the cessation of the Active Service period, and it was decided to cover these cases by extending the provisions of the Army Pensions Act of 1923 to cover that period. It thus results that wounds and injuries, and deaths arising therefrom, occurring in the year from the 1/10/1923 to the 30/9/1924, will be dealt with under the provisions of the Act of 1923.

Disease disabilities having their origin from service in the Defence Forces as constituted on 1st October, 1924, are not provided for. The Defence Forces have existed since 1st October, 1924, on a peace basis, and the State could not be called upon to accept any pension responsibility in respect of disease actually arising in the period from 1st October, 1924, amongst a body of men who are medically fit, and under constant medical supervision, and whose conditions of life in the Army are less likely to create disease than in civil life. Wounds and injuries and deaths arising therefrom are, however, provided for, but on a different basis to that laid down in the Army Pensions Act of 1923. The difference lies in the fact that it was only from the 1/10/1924 that ranks amongst officers and men became clearly defined, and pensions and gratuities in respect of wounds and injuries and deaths arising in the Defence Forces, as constituted on that date, are dealt with on a graduated scale according to the rank of the person concerned.

There are some general powers provided for in the Bill which will, I am sure, be acceptable. In case of failure of a pensioner to maintain his wife and children, payment of the pension may be made to the wife, or the pension may be supplied for the maintenance of the children.

Medical treatment of pensioners is an essential feature of pension administration. The Act of 1923 did not specifically provide for such treatment. We have now covered the treatment hitherto given, and provided for treatment to be given in the future.

When a pensioner is called into hospital for treatment, powers are given in the Bill for the increase of the pension for the period in hospital.

Another new provision is that covering the payment of funeral expenses of pensioners dying in hospital. The Bill goes as far as the finances of the State will permit. I think it solves, in a reasonable way, the problems that had to be faced, and I move the Second Reading with confidence that the House will agree in that view.

Mr. JOHNSON

If one could be astounded at anything the Minister could say and do one would be astounded at the inadequacy of his explanation of this Bill. This is a Bill that has been promised from time to time for the last two years and six months or three years. It is three years, practically, since we had the first promise that this Bill was in preparation, and the last statement in regard to it was that it would be necessary to withdraw the Bill and introduce two Bills in its place.

I am curious to know what is the position of this Bill. Is this Bill the one that was to be withdrawn or is it the first Bill of two Bills which were to be introduced in the place of the one that was to be withdrawn; is it the second Bill of these two or is it the Bill itself?

Mr. HUGHES

I think the Deputy is labouring under a misapprehension. What I stated at the time was that it might be necessary to introduce two Bills instead of the one that was withdrawn, but it was found on examination that it could be provided for in the one Bill, and everything is provided for in this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then we are to understand that this is the Bill: that this is not to be withdrawn and that there is not to be another Bill supplementing this.

Mr. HUGHES

Quite.

Mr. JOHNSON

Well, that is the first item of definiteness that we have had in regard to the Bill for three years. In the first place we have not had any word from the Minister as to what he thinks might be the cost of this Bill. I admit at once that it is impossible to make anything like an accurate estimate, but I have no doubt that during the long cogitations between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance there has been some kind of a tentative estimate made as to what is likely to be the cost. That, I think, is due to the House, and I have no doubt it will come from one or other Minister between now and the entry upon the Committee Stage. There are a number of explanations due in regard to the Bill which I had hoped would have come from the Minister. I think, for instance, that it should have been made clear by the Minister that there is a declining scale according to the date of service or the date of discharge or the date of death, and that the later the discharge from the Army, due to disease or wounds, the smaller the amount of gratuity and the smaller the rate of pension. That, I think, should be justified. It is desirable that some explanation should be given as to the reasons for that declining scale of pensions and gratuities. I think, too, that we might have had some justification for the retention of as high a figure as 80 per cent. disablement due to disease attributable to military service before any pension is payable. I am quite unable to understand why we should demand that a man should be 80 per cent. disabled, which is almost certainly whole disablement so far as earning a livelihood is concerned, and why no lesser amount of disablement should be admitted. There may be a good case for it, but the Minister has not made it. I think it is necessary to ask him to give us some explanation of that particular provision.

Again, I think it is reasonable to ask the Minister whether the provision in, say, Section 13 in the Bill is intended to ensure that men who were members of the Irish Volunteers and remained members of the Irish Volunteer Force but who did not become members of the National Army and who have suffered from disablement caused by disease attributable to military service even after the establishment of the National Army, are eligible for pensions. As I read it, this Bill is intended to make that possible. I take it that that is deliberate; that men who were members of the Irish Volunteer Forces and remained members of the Irish Volunteers on service after April, 1922, and suffered disabilities owing to wounds or disease while on service, attributable to service, are to be eligible for pensions. I think that it is desirable that we should have that made clear and that it is intended-Again, I find a lapse in the Bill which I thought would have been corrected. It was a lapse in the original Bill, and I think deliberate in that case, but it appears clearly to my mind to have resulted in unfair treatment and I thought would have been corrected. I mean to say, where it can be shown that military service during the pre-Truce period, during the period from 1916 onwards, was in a women's organisation—a women's military organisation—and that similar disablement due to disease attributable to that service was entailed, that they should be treated similarly to men. As a matter of fact, I am not sure whether we would not be doing an unconstitutional act by passing a Bill making that discrimination. I think it desirable that there should be a clear provision in the Bill which would remove all doubt on that matter.

Now, there are a few details that perhaps deserve some comment, and it is desirable that they should be brought to the notice of the Minister with a view to his agreeing to introduce amendments on the Committee Stage. I find for instance, that it will pay— to treat the subject on the very lowest plane—a woman that her husband should be killed instead of being merely disabled. For instance, a private who is wounded and is suffering one hundred per cent. disability, having a wife and four children, would have to live upon a pension of 25/- per week. If he had been killed outright the wife and children would receive 28/6 per week. Now, that is putting a premium on suicide. If a man was aware of that provision in the Bill, which is penalising his wife and children, he would attempt to finish the job unless his presence of mind failed.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. HUGHES

What about the hereafter?

Mr. JOHNSON

I say it is putting a premium on suicide, and we are now concerned with the sphere of action of the legislature. I hope the Minister's interjection does not mean that because he has no fear of the hereafter he puts a provision of this character in the Bill! Again, I draw attention to the difference between the rate in the 1923 Act and the rate in the proposed Bill, in respect to non-commissioned officers and men. In the 1923 Act a single private would receive 42/- under certain circumstances, but, in identical circumstances, under the new Bill, he would receive 20/-. That is a very great discrimination, and it appears difficult to justify. I do not know what the principle at work is, whether it is intended as a suitable reward for men who gave service in special circumstances, and whether those, special circumstances pre-Truce were regarded as something more deserving of monetary reward than service post-Truce, or whether there is some kind of special sentimental preference given. I do not know. I think it is necessary for the Minister to explain what principle is in operation, and what is determining this gradually descending scale, according to the service, quite apart from what he describes as the peace period.

Under the new scale in the Bill a private who has been totally disabled will receive a pension of 20/- weekly, or, if he is married, 25/-. With young children that is an inadequate sum. It will involve, in towns, the necessity of the mother of the children going out to work. Consequently, it means detriment to the children, and in the case of a totally disabled husband, it will probably be detrimental to him also. I think that quite apart from the question of the rate there should be provision made, if we are to accept the principle of pension for total disablement, for continuing it in respect of children. The dropping out of that provision is, I think, not defensible. If it is defensible it is due to the House that a defence should be made by the Minister.

I find a provision regarding the maximum gratuity, fixing a lump sum payable in case of death and disease, or death while in receipt of a pension on account of disease or wounds. It seems to me that an analogy has been made with the workmen's compensation provisions, and that this £300 lump sum provision has been possibly suggested by that analogy. It may not have come to the knowledge of the Minister and his advisers in this matter, but it is correct to say that the whole tendency in respect of workmen's compensation provisions and legislation, both in Great Britain and according to the report of the recent Commission, is against the provision of lump sums for the very clear and valid reason that people who are not in the habit of handling large sums of money seldom —I was going to say very infrequently —make the best use of it.

One has come across many cases during the last few years where provision has been made by lump sum grants from one fund or another where the parties entered a little business. They opened a shop, entirely inexperienced, unfitted either on the buying or the selling side, and after two or three years the whole of the provision is gone and they are again looking for help. I think that provision should be substituted by one to continue payments in respect of children. It is an undesirable principle, except you have exceptional circumstances and a valid reason, to pay a lump sum instead of a yearly, monthly or weekly payment. I think the normal procedure should be a provision continuing payments, particularly where children are concerned. I know that involves a continuing organisation, but there is no reason to expect that something in the nature of an Army organisation will not continue. I think it is not a difficult thing to adjust the scheme to cover continuing pensions or allowances for women and children. I hope that particular provision will be reconsidered because, as it is, it is liable to do much less good than a continuing payment.

I have spoken about the question of the 80 per cent. disability. Let it be borne in mind that the onus of proof that disability was contracted owing to service is upon the soldier. That imposes a very great strain upon the power of the soldier to produce evidence. You are imposing all kinds of obligations on the soldier. You are making it difficult for him to get a pension under that provision, and it seems to me that where such difficulties are placed in the way there is really no good reason why you should not reduce the degree of disability, so that pensions may be payable on a lower scale where the lower degree of disability is due to disease contracted owing to service. I find, too, some difficulty regarding the Army Pensions Board. The Army Pensions Board was not specifically mentioned in the 1923 Act, but I think I am right in saying that it was set up under regulation.

Mr. HUGHES

It was only an Advisory Board.

Mr. JOHNSON

An Advisory Board set up under regulation?

Mr. HUGHES

It was a Board to advise the Minister—it was not a Statutory Board.

Mr. JOHNSON

It was not a Statutory Board—that is what I am referring to. The Bill makes some provision for the constitution of a Board, but it is only to deal with cases originating before October, 1924. I gathered from the Minister's interjection that the intention now is to give that Board statutory authority—that it was only made under regulation as an Advisory Board, but that this Bill is giving it statutory authority in respect to the last Act. Is that the position?

Mr. HUGHES

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON

I see. There are what seem to be omissions in the Bill to which I hope the Minister will give some attention. The terms are: " disease attributable to service "; "death due to wounds." But there are a number of cases that one has come across which to my mind are clearly cases which should come under one or other of these Acts, and yet are not clearly provided for in the Bill. I have come across cases, for instant of men driving an army lorry who were in a collision and suffered disability, and I think in one case death. But disability due to accident has not been covered by the Act, and is not covered by this Bill. Cases of the death of soldiers owing to accidental shooting by their comrades who were unqualified to handle guns do not seem to be covered by this Bill and surely should be if any are to be covered.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Killed whilst cycling.

Mr. JOHNSON

I know of a case where a man who had been in regular employment for years, never in difficulty, and, so far as I know, having no family tendency towards insanity, owing to certain ambushes and bomb explosions during his service had been driven insane and died. Whether that could be classed as a disease owing to army service is not clear. Any ordinary layman might think that it would be, but it has been held not to have been attributable to service, and therefore no pension has been granted. Other cases that one might quote do not seem to be covered by this Bill, and yet one would imagine they were intended to be covered by any amending Bill. Therefore, it seems to me that the Bill will require to be very closely examined.

As to the whole scheme of the Bill and its drafting. I want to know whether it is the intention of the Minister to produce anything in the way of an explanatory statement for the information of soldiers. I do not know how many Deputies have tried to read and understand this Bill. I have, and I have tried to get expert assistance. The expert assistance has enabled me to get a certain "line" on the Bill, as one might say, to understand something of the results of the Bill, but it is impossible to understand what principle is at work in the building up of the Bill. A very small matter that would not affect the law, but certainly would affect the reader, is the whole manner of explanation—these side-headings do not explain at all. "Wound pensions and gratuities in certain other cases"; "Gratuities to dependents in certain cases." There is no guidance in these indices at all, and I would ask the Minister if he would endeavour to produce a revised version of this Bill for the easier understanding of Deputies and the public.

I turn, for instance, to Section 11, sub-section (5), and I read: "In the case of a person who at the date of his discharge from the Forces is suffering from any of the disablements mentioned in the first column of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, the degree of such person's disablement for the purposes of this section shall be the degree set out in the second column." Although attention has been called to this defect, no notice has been taken of it. The first column referred to has the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and these are supposed to be the list of disablements. It is quite impossible to understand in that form. In the same Schedule one sees opposite, "degree of disablement—3,""amputation of leg at hip, or below hip, etc.——." What is meant by the blank? Is there no proportion corresponding to the degree of disablement where it is a case of the amputation of a leg or hip? Apparently not. Then there is a very curious provision in this Schedule: "Loss of one eye, result of G.S.W." I wonder does that mean loss of one eye due to a Great Swill of Whiskey?

Mr. HUGHES

No; it is "gunshot wound."

Mr. JOHNSON

Who is to understand that?

Mr. HUGHES

The Medical Board, I expect.

Mr. JOHNSON

Supposing they do not understand it as you wish them to understand it?

Mr. HUGHES

If they do not, we cannot help it.

Mr. JOHNSON

These are small matters which show, at any rate, that the Bill had not, no matter how great the time that has been employed upon it, that care in its drafting and preparation that it should have had. I want to put to the Minister two or three questions which are typical and will, perhaps, help us to understand, if answered correctly or lucidly, what is meant by certain sections of the Bill. The first is: What gratuity would be payable to a soldier wounded before the 1st October, 1923, but suffering from a 15 per cent. disability only, and retained in the Army until after 1st October, 1924? If he were discharged before October, 1924, he would get up to about £40, but supposing he were not discharged until after October, 1924, would he get anything and what would he get?

The second question is: When would the payment of pensions commence in the case of a widow and children of a man killed while in the Army, between October, 1923, and October, 1924? Perhaps if the Minister will refer to Section 15 (1a) he might be able to answer and to tell whether it is intended that from the date of the death of the soldier the pensions would be payable. The third question is what pension is payable to the dependents of a man wounded, say, in January, 1924, but who did not die until June, 1926? It appears, as I read the Bill, that if he were discharged before 1st October, 1924, his widow would receive 17/6 per week, but if he were wounded on the same day, but were not discharged until November 1st, or even 1st October, 1924, and died in June, 1926, his widow would only receive 12/6; that is to say, the difference between schedule 6 and schedule 7. There you have an apparent anomaly. The two soldiers are wounded in the same action on the same day. They live for nearly four years, and they die in the same month, but for one reason or another they were not discharged on the same date from the Army. If a man were discharged on 30th September, 1924, it appears to me his widow would receive 17/6 per week pension, but if his friend and comrade, wounded on the same date, were not discharged until 1st October, there would be a difference of 5/- per week in the pension. That is hardly understandable, if it were intended, and if it were not intended it surely requires correction.

The Bill does tend, I think, and successfully in many cases, to meet what are legitimate claims for pensions or gratuities due to service in the Army. I think it will require a good deal of examination and a good deal more explanation than has even been hinted at by the Minister. It is a Bill that is very difficult to read and I hope that the introductory statement of the Minister was only intended to lead on Deputies to make queries, and that he really intended to do what other Ministers have done in the past—make the Second Reading speech at the close of the discussion. I anticipate that the Minister will make a really exhaustive explanation and examination of the Bill for the benefit of Deputies and the public outside. If he does not intend to make that exhaustive explanation at this stage of the Bill I want to know whether it is his intention to introduce a guide to the Bill, to publish it and to make clear for the inquirer what is intended to be done by the Government in introducing this Bill.

I would ask the Minister, if he has an hour or two to spare, to call up fifty men who have served in the Army and, with the aid of some of his Army tutors, to go through this Bill and examine them, clause after clause, page after page, and to see how many months it would take them to pass even an elementary examination in the meaning of the Bill. I think it would be a very difficult thing for the ordinary soldier to understand the Bill and what is being provided for him. I suggest to the Minister that he should tell us whether it is his intention to publish something in the nature of a clear explanation of the Bill for the ordinary man in the street, so that he shall know what is intended to be done on his behalf. I hope that I am right in my surmise that the Minister has the intention of really explaining the Bill before the close of the discussion, and that he will touch on some of the points I have raised and give explanations as to why certain elements continue to be omitted and why certain others have been included.

I am going to support the Second Reading because I believe that the principle of pensions for diseases or wounds, clearly attributable to Army service, entails upon us a responsibility for the soldier and his dependents. I am not one who believes that because a man gives service in the national forces at any time, he must have a permanent call upon the nation's finances, but where men, through their services, have become incapable of earning a livelihood, I think they have a right to call upon the national bounty. Therefore, on these grounds I support the Second Reading, and I hope the Minister will let the public understand what he intends by the Bill.

General MULCAHY

I also desire to point out that in the matter of disability due to disease, in so far as it is dealt with under the Bill, the Bill only makes provision for the grant of a pension to a person who is disabled to the extent of 80 per cent. I think that the Minister has not made any case as to why there should be a stoppage at 80 per cent., and he would want to make a very strong case for it. Take the case of a Commandant, whose pay is £365 a year, who is disabled to the extent of 80 per cent. Under the present terms of the Bill he would be entitled to a pension of £175 14s. 0d., and, in the case of a married man, to £20 additional. A man disabled to the extent of 80 per cent. would be entitled to a pension of £195 14s. 0d. a year, but if he was disabled to any fraction less than 80 per cent., not only does he get no pension, but there is no provision for granting a gratuity. As between a pension of almost £200 a year and nothing, there is certainly no reasonable tailing-off as the Bill is drafted. So far as the percentage of disability entitling a person to pension is concerned, a case requires to be made for 80 per cent., and, in my opinion, the percentage should be very much lower. There is this particular difference between disability due to disease and disability due to a wound, namely, that in many cases the wound is quite a clear cut thing and does not react on general health.

A person, for instance, who has lost a left arm below the elbow will be regarded as 50 per cent. disabled under the Act of 1923, and will be entitled to a pension, but a person who is disabled to the extent of 50 per cent. as a result of disease is in a much worse position than a person who is 50 per cent. disabled because of a clean wound which will not necessarily react on his general health. 50 per cent. of disability due to disease may easily become aggravated. Whereas a man who is wounded is given a pension under the Army Pensions Act of 1923, there is no provision at all in the case of such a man under the present Bill. Like Deputy Johnson, I have had some difficulty in regard to the general aspect of the Bill, but, taking a rule and set-square attitude, it does not seem that the Bill could be much improved in the matter of drafting. What seems to be wrong is that there is a certain amount of overlapping. When I came to the point where it is laid down that a person could not get anything if he had less than 80 per cent. disability, I thought that there was a page left out of the Bill, and my reading of it was much disturbed as a consequence.

There are certain clauses in the Bill by which a person who was wounded or disabled as a result of disease before the 1st of October, 1924, will get different compensation according as he was discharged before or after that date. I do not think it reasonable that a person who suffers from disability contracted before the formation of the forces should be discriminated against because he was discharged subsequent to the formation of the forces. A case may be made for reducing—as a matter of fact, reduction only comes about in the lower ranks—but a case may be made out for reducing pensions in the case of disability occurring to persons after the establishment of the forces, but, even if that case could be made out, it ought not to be used to discriminate against persons disabled before the establishment of the forces. For instance, a lieutenant, whose pay is ten shillings a day, as a result of the change in this matter, may, under one arrangement, be entitled to a pension of £87 12s. 0d. plus £12 marriage allowance, whereas, if he was paid on what he would be entitled to for being discharged before the 1st of October, 1924, he would be entitled to a pension of £160 0s. 0d. plus £20 0s. 0d. marriage allowance. The difference in the case of a captain would be as between £122 12s. 0d. and £160 0s. 0d.

I think an examination of that position by the Minister would result in that particular type of injustice not being done, because I consider it an injustice. Another matter to which I would like to draw attention is that under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, it is provided in Section 8, sub-section (1):

"If a person to whom a military service pension is payable under this Act shall at any time during the continuance of such pension be in receipt of any remuneration, pension or allowance payable out of public monies provided by the Oireachtas, the military service pension payable to such person under this Act shall be suspended to an extent calculated according to the provisions contained in the Third Schedule to this Act while he is in receipt of such remuneration, pension, or allowance as aforesaid."

It means that if a person entitled to a military service pension is employed in the Civil Service, the amount of money coming to him as military service pension is reduced on a sliding scale according to the salary he receives from the Civil Service. In the same manner, if a person was entitled to a wound pension under the Act of 1923, and was in receipt of that pension out of public monies, his military service pension is reduced in the same way. I feel that it was never intended when the Military Service Pensions Act was being passed that monies paid to wounded officers or men would be regarded in the same way as monies paid as a result of being given employment in the Civil Service or any other way. I would like to have it considered whether a change should not now be made so that a deduction shall not be made from the military service pension because a man also draws a wound pension. I know there will be a difficulty in dealing with that particular matter in the present Bill, because it would amount to an amendment of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924.

I think in dealing with cases such as we are dealing with now, where we propose under the Bill to give a man a pension because of disability due to disease, the granting of that pension should not be regarded as payment out of public monies for the purposes of Section 8 (1) of the Military Service Act, 1924. In Part II., Schedule 3, in the matter of rates for soldiers, it is suggested that if a sergeant, corporal, or private is promoted to a higher rank and meets with an injury in that higher rank, less than six months after his promotion, his pension will be according to the rank from which he was promoted. If a man meets with an accident on higher duties, even within six months after his promotion, his pension ought to be at the rate of the higher duties which involved him in that accident. There is another very important point in the Bill in Clause 9 (3). As at present drafted, pensions in respect of disability due to disease will not be payable in any case until after the date of the passing of the Bill. It contemplates that there are cases arising out of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, and, perhaps, some cases going back before that. In view of the delay in bringing forward this Bill, whatever may be the reasons for it, it seems to me very unfair that a person who can prove that he was disabled so long ago as 1923 and has suffered serious disablement since, as a result of military service, should be deprived of the compensation that will be regarded as due to him under this Bill for a period of three or four years, simply because there has been a delay in dealing with the matter here, because of the difficulties which arose. That is another point in connection with the Bill which requires to be very carefully considered.

Major COOPER

As Deputy Johnson has said, this Bill has been under Ministerial consideration for a very prolonged period. Whenever I see a hen sitting for two years on an egg I know that the egg is addled, and whenever I see a Minister sitting for two years on a Bill I have a very strong suspicion that the same will be the case. I am not quite sure that the reception that this Bill has met with does not bear me out. I do not know if the Minister expected to have shouts of gratitude for his generosity, but he certainly has not received them. What is the purpose of this Bill? I think the Minister defined it in these words: "To ameliorate in some manner the sufferings of those who are not able to provide for themselves," and he very wisely put in three words—"in some manner." It all depends upon our views as to what manner this Bill will alleviate the sufferings of those who are not able to provide for themselves how we shall form our judgment on it and vote on it. But that generally does not carry us far enough; we must go a little deeper. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it only to get the Government out of an awkward corner? Is it only to occupy our time in a discussion so that the ex-National Army man may think that something is being done for him, or is it a real effort to help him, is it a real effort to satisfy him? If it is the latter I cannot feel that it will fulfil its object. I am not going into the criticisms, forcible and cogent as they were, which Deputy Risteard O Maolchatha and Deputy Johnson put before the House. I want to approach the Bill from another angle and to look at the machinery by means of which a man suffering from disability would obtain his pension.

We must bear in mind in the first instance that these men are suffering from a sense of grievance, rightly or wrongly, because they think this matter has been postponed too long. Many of them have been through very considerable hardships owing to the disabilities they contracted in the National Army. They do not approach the machinery of the Bill in a spirit of gratitude; they approach it in the spirit of men who expect something will be done for them. What do they find that this Bill will do for them? Their claims come before an Army Pensions Board, and that Board is appointed by the Minister for Defence, in two cases, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. The Board is removable at will, without any reason being given, by the Minister for Defence. It is a tribunal—I do not want to put it too strongly—entirely dependent on the Minister for Defence, who chooses the members and who can remove them and substitute others at any moment that he thinks fit. From this tribunal, dependent entirely on the Minister for Defence, there is no appeal of any kind whatever. I have a little knowledge—not as much as I would like to have—of the British War Pensions Acts. They are very numerous, and they do provide for an independent appeal from the first Pension Board.

This has been of very substantial benefit to claimants for pensions, because it is an appeal to an independent tribunal, and in from twenty-five to forty per cent. of cases—it varies in different localities—the finding of the first Board has been overruled to the advantage of the applicant and claimant for the pension. There is no possibility of that happening here. But the situation is even worse. Even though there is no appeal and though the members of the Board are dependent on the Minister, I have sufficient knowledge of and respect for the medical profession to know that they will do their duty in an impartial spirit. But they will not be allowed to do their duty according to their own spirit. They are tied down, in the case of disability owing to illness, by the 80 per cent. stipulation; they are tied down in the case of disability owing to wounds by a most complete and drastic schedule. They are tied tighter by this schedule than a woman was when laced in by her stays in the days when they were worn. It is impossible to test disability from that point of view, simply laying down the injury and pointing out the amount of disability that it causes, because it does not take into account the circumstances of the individual.

It is a great misfortune to any man to lose a leg, but it is a much greater misfortune for a ploughman or a postman than it is for a clerk. A ploughman or a postman, a man with little education, finds it far harder to find employment, far harder to earn any sort of substitute living, than a man of education, a man with a knowledge of clerical work, a man with a profession, does. The same applies to rheumatism. The man who contracts rheumatism can carry on pretty well with it if he is working in an office, but if he is a farm worker, exposed to the weather at all seasons, he cannot carry on business. Yet the Schedules of this Bill make no difference between the outdoor worker and the indoor worker; they bind the man down to the precise degree of disability.

I am afraid that in its present form this Bill raises false hopes, that it is a Bill which will raise in many people's minds the hope that they will obtain pensions, because the public outside do not read Bills in detail. They certainly could not understand this Bill if they did. I have not been able to understand all the aspects of it, and, like Deputy Johnson, I sought expert advice, but I have heard nothing from that source yet. Certainly the ordinary discharged soldier will not understand this Bill. He will only have the hope: "They are going to give us a pension at last"; he will go around spending time and money in getting certificates from his officers, medical certificates, and so on, and at the end he will find the Medical Board saying to him: "We are very sorry; you do not come within the four corners of the Act." Honestly, if this is the best the Minister can do, I believe it would be almost better for him to say, as he said in his speech, that it is beyond the country's natural resources to compensate for all sacrifices. That would at least prevent the raising of false hopes. But I do not believe this is the best that the Minister can do, and I am certain it is not the best that the Dáil can do. I am certain that the Bill is capable of very drastic amendment, and if I give my vote for the Second Reading it will only be a vote in favour of amending the Act of 1923 to provide for disability due to illness, and that it does not commit me in any degree to the machinery proposed in this measure.

Mr. WOLFE

I think every Deputy has been looking forward for a long time, with considerable anxiety, to this amending Bill. It has been delayed from time to time and one began to think it would not appear at all. It has come at last and it is welcomed by no Deputies more than by those who live in what used to be a great military centre. There, more or less every day, cases of hardship are brought to notice, cases that were turned down by the Board, and cases that, to the ordinary mind, seemed cases of cruel hardship. In many instances it was evident that the disabilities did not come within Acts that were then in force. Now we are all looking forward to this amending Bill.

As Deputy Johnson and Deputy Cooper have said, it is a very complicated measure and requires a very astute mind to understand all the things connected with it. All one can do is to hope for the best; to hope that before the measure leaves the Dáil it will be put in a form so that we will be able to understand it, and so that people outside who have to apply for pensions will be able to understand it. In fact, it is to be hoped that a sort of explanatory book will be issued in regard to certain particulars that are too deep for the ordinary mind to fathom.

I am glad to see the measure is wide in some respects; that there are certain terms used that give one to hope that cases hitherto excluded from the Pensions Acts will be brought in. I have come across cases, cruel, hard cases, that do not come within the present measure. I have come across cases, not of wounds, but worse than wounds—cases of insanity and complete loss of mental power. These cases have been turned down. I have also come across cases of creeping paralysis, cases that have been developing for a long time, and yet these cases have been turned down. I have seen cases of tuberculosis, too. I remember the case of a man during my last election campaign, four years ago. He was then dying of tuberculosis, and to the ordinary mind it seemed absolutely clear that the disease was contracted on military service. This man had a very large family, and he had nothing to support them with. His case was turned down and I never could understand why.

These things have given rise—and rightly—to a great deal of dissatisfaction. People do not see why they should risk their lives giving service to the country if their claims are turned down in this way. There has not been sufficient attention given to these cases. There has not been sufficient liberality shown in the manipulation of the awards.

The British, with all their faults, have not acted in that way. The other day, in an article I read, I noticed that out of 67,000 cases of pensions that were awarded by the British 13,000 were cases that had not developed while the men were on active service. They were cases of shell-shock and mental disturbance. I have known a lot of those cases—men who have gone through four years of warfare without a scratch and who have suddenly broken down mentally. Can there be anything more cruel than that? Wounds are very bad, no doubt, but to be mentally disabled, hopelessly laid aside for the rest of your life, is very much worse. I think nothing could be more cruel than that.

I think in the previous Act too much stress has been laid upon wounds. There are other things quite as bad both for the suffering person and the dependents of that person. In many cases people have to look for a living from men so disabled. I hope that this measure will take these cases into account; that it will take cases such as I have referred to within its ambit. If it does not, I am quite certain that a great many people who are waiting patiently for justice to be done them under this new measure will be frightfully dissatisfied. Quite properly will they be dissatisfied, because when a man risks his life in the service of his country he has a right to expect that he shall not have, at any rate, to spend the remainder of his life in beggary or shall not have to be supported by his relatives who, in many cases, can hardly support themselves.

Deputy Johnson alluded to gratuities and he argued that they were unwise. I agree and I think more care should be exercised in giving them. I have known a great many cases in which gratuities were given, and they simply meant the destruction of the man because he spent the money all at once and was left stranded. It would have been far better to give him a small pension. That would have been a help. If the man were unable to work it would have helped him considerably and he would have had something to fall back on. Except in exceptional cases gratuities are a great mistake.

As regards the financial aspect of the measure, I think the percentages ought to be altered in many cases. Considering the liabilities of the country, I think it is a fair attempt to give as good a pension as the country can afford. There are many things to be done and it is necessary for every Government to be just before it is generous and to make the money go as far as possible. I think that amounts allowed should be such that they will afford a decent living or be a substantial help towards a decent living.

There is one thing I would like to make clear. There were several cases of young people who got pensions for life and I have grave doubts as to the wisdom of giving these pensions. Two or three young men to whom life pensions were granted have come to me and asked me whether if they worked they would lose the pension. They got the pensions for life and they have not been doing any work because they were afraid of losing the pension. That seems to be a very wrong state of affairs. In contrast with those cases you have the mental cases I have alluded to—cases of acute paralysis— in which nothing has been given. In these other cases men have been granted pensions for life. Many of them are young men who could get employment. That is a state of affairs that ought to be remedied.

Mr. DAVIN

Are you quite sure these young men were able to get work?

Mr. WOLFE

Yes, of a certain kind. I do not mean hard work, but they would be able to do a certain amount of work suitable to the condition they were in. I do not mean labouring work. That is a thing that ought to be made clear—that they should not be liable to lose their pensions. If they get life pensions it should be definitely indicated they are life pensions. I think it would have been better in a good many cases to have awarded pensions for a certain time. Instead of that pensions were given to men who, to my mind, were much too young to be given life pensions. Other cases of a much worse kind have been omitted altogether.

I hope the Bill before it leaves the Dáil will be improved. The financial points will be dealt with by others who speak with more authority than I do, and I have no doubt they will be gone into very thoroughly, so that I hope the Bill will be made a good one. It is looked forward to, and if it is not up to expectation there will be great disappointment.

I hope in this matter we will not follow the example of the British, of years past, when it was said they allowed their soldiers to die in the workhouses. I hope that will never be said in the Free State, and that men who have given their services and their lives for the country will not be compelled to end their days, as happened in former years, under poor law relief, and that, at any rate, we shall set a better example in that respect than the country across the water.

Mr. A. BYRNE

It was as a result of the action in this House of Deputies in all quarters bringing forward the grievances of ex-army men that this Bill was introduced. I brought forward a number of cases, as did other Deputies, but so far as I can judge of this Bill, many of the cases that I brought forward are not dealt with. The last case I mentioned in this House was that of a soldier of a cycling battalion who, when cycling to the memorial service for the Griffith and Collins anniversary, fell and was killed on the roadside. His dependents were informed that they were not entitled to any compensation, and I do not see that such a case is provided for in this Bill.

I also brought forward a case in which a young man lost his leg, and when he applied for compensation he was informed that as he used firearms contrary to the Regulations he was not entitled to any compensation. He was in uniform and was told a raid was expected in the Department of which he was one of the guards. He took up a loaded rifle, and it went off. As a result this young man lost his leg and has not received a penny compensation from that day to this. Another case I brought to the notice of the Minister was that of a young man engaged in cleaning operations in barracks. It had been the custom in the barrack to destroy all ordinary refuse in a big iron bin attached to the wall. It became overfull on this occasion and some young man apparently splinkled it with petrol, threw a match into it, so that the refuse was burned away. But before the sheet iron lid which covered this bin had time to cool, this particular young man, who was about to empty a bucket into it, made an effort to lift the lid which was red hot. The result was that it fell upon his ankle, causing such injury that the young man lost the limb. That young man has not got a penny piece from that day to this. He was provided with an artificial limb by the White Cross Society after he was refused compensation by the authorities.

Then there was the case of a young man who was badly injured while driving a motor car. In this particular instance I believe an attack was made on the motor car, and the glass of the wind-screen of the car was damaged and a piece of it struck the young man on the head. Shortly afterwards he was transferred to a mental home, and he is in that mental home at the present moment. At the time I am speaking of, about twelve months ago—I cannot say what has occurred since—his wife came to me to ask me to recommend herself and her family to the relieving officer for poor law relief. The State ought to see to this case, and if there is no provision in the new Bill to deal with it, some provision ought to be made for this class of case. Great numbers of people are anxiously looking forward to this Bill. Only three months ago the mother of a young ex-Army man came to me and presented a card, which was familiar to many Deputies in the days gone by, asking for my support in order to make representations to the Hospital for Incurables. She wanted to get her son into that hospital. Her soldier son was an absolute wreck. It was a case of neurasthenia, caused, I think, by service in the Wireless Department of the Army. The unfortunate mother had the invalid on her hands for two years, and no department or Government board would give that poor woman one penny towards the upkeep of the son who was made a wreck as the result of his service in the Army. I do not see that type of case provided for in the Bill, and there were many other cases of young men going up and down the country, sleeping in hay barns and wet blankets, and compelled to go for days together without any change of clothing, and they claim that tuberculosis has resulted. Such cases as those when they come before the Pension Board should be sympathetically considered.

Now I find fault with the Department of Defence generally in not giving representation on these boards to the men affected. You have an ex-National Army Officers' Association, as well as various other associations, looking after ex-soldiers. These organisations have no representation whatever on these boards to enable them to put forward the cases of men who had been injured or wounded. The Board is appointed by the Minister and can be removed by him. I have heard of a case myself of a board that sat on one occasion. The board consisted of only one doctor.

Mr. HUGHES

Could the Deputy give me any particulars of that case?

Mr. A. BYRNE

This was a case that was brought to my notice six or eight months ago. I was informed by the young man that there was only one doctor present at the time. I think that no board ought to be composed of less than three persons. I hold, too, that the organisations of the ex-National Army men, and other soldiers' organisations, should have representation on these boards for the purpose of being able to state cases on behalf of their members.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I think Deputy Wolfe has a true conception of the basis of this Bill. He said that it was a case of hoping for the best. A good many people have been hoping for the best for the past three years, and the best that the Government has been able to present them with now, after all the criticism that this matter has been subjected to, is the present very bedraggled Bill. My approach to the Bill will not be on the line of general criticism. I propose to address myself to a few definite and particular cases that will require a very clear and explicit definition of some of the terms in the Bill. Many people have been hoping for a long time that their cases would get consideration—the consideration that every party in the nation agree that they deserve to get. I intend now to put forward one of these cases. I intend to give the cold facts of this case, as I cannot satisfy myself that there are any provisions in the Bill to deal with it, and it resolves itself more or less into a matter of definitions. It is the case of a young man who was a County Inspector's clerk in the R.I.C. and who was an agent for the I.R.A. within the R.I.C. As matters became too hot for him in the R.I.C. he went and joined the flying column of a brigade that was active in a particular county.

I will read the particulars as given by a high officer in the Army, who knows the merits of the particular case that I refer to, and who, as a very well qualified and capable soldier himself, can say what a capable soldier the man that I refer to was. He says in this statement that the man I refer to served for some time with so and so column, having been previously appointed Brigade Police Officer. Some time in June, 1921, he was one of a party of ten Volunteers who were surprised by a party of R.I.C. This little column that the man I refer to belonged to had already, that day, another fight with a party of R.I.C. At the time of the second encounter the men composing it were absolutely worn out from marching and fighting. Only this man and the column commander, now the O.C. of a certain battalion, were able to offer any effective resistance, and they covered the retreat of the others, falling back and fighting every inch of the way. The day was terribly warm, and this man was for some time showing signs of distress, but even when instructed to get away, refused to do so. He kept on fighting until his pursuers were beaten off, and immediately after he collapsed at his post and died from exhaustion. He died with a rifle in his hand and with almost his last cartridge fired.

That man's dependants applied for compensation under the Army Pension Act of 1923. They were told that within the four corners of that Act there was no power to grant them compensation because the man did not die from wounds. I am endeavouring to find out how this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will apply to that particular case. I find in the Bill that "the word ‘killed' when used in the principal Act, or in this Act, shall include, and when used in the principal Act, shall be deemed always to have included death by drowning." I find that the word "disablement" means "any injury of a permanent nature resulting in impairment of function caused by wounds or disease." I do not think it can be questioned that such a man as I have referred to did die actually in the service of his country, as much as if a bullet had been put through his heart or brain. The testimony that I have offered proves that clearly. I should like to hear from the Minister what provision is made for such a case as this if it is only in the case of death from wounds it is proposed to give a pension or gratuity. Is that a proper way to treat that case? If he had remained in the R.I.C. he would probably be alive to-day and receiving a pension. Is this country going to treat less fairly the men who made sacrifices to place it in the position of having a Government of its own than a foreign Government treated the members of the army of occupation which it had in this country? I would like if the Minister would tell us something on the matter.

There is another matter that I am surprised no Deputy has touched on so far with reference to this Bill. There was a section of men who, to my mind, gave the greatest exhibition of courage that has been given by any section of men in the fight for the national independence of this country. I refer to the Connaught Rangers in India. There is not one word about looking after these men in this Bill. These are the only two cases that I would ask the Minister to give us some information on. With the other examinations of the Bill I am in thorough agreement, particularly with the point made by Deputy Mulcahy against the operation of sub-section (3), Section 9. These are matters I think the Minister did not make a case for, and I should like that he would do so. I should like him to tell us whether within the definitions and terms of this Bill the cases that I have quoted can be dealt with.

Mr. NORTON

The Minister, in the course of his opening remarks, stated that it was necessary to cut our cloth according to our measure. While that may be so to a certain extent, I think the Minister has been particularly penurious in the amount of the financial contribution which he proposes the State should make to those people who made sacrifices of life or of health on behalf of the State. In the case of a private soldier totally disabled who has a wife and four young children the maximum pension that he will obtain under the Bill will be 25/- per week.

What is 25/- a week for a man who is totally disabled and unable to follow his normal occupation, who has a wife and four children dependent on him? Let us assume that that man was in good circumstances before he joined the Army, and paid 10/- or 12/- a week for a house which he occupied for a considerable time. He comes back from the Army totally disabled, and is still under the liability of 10/- or 12/- weekly for the house. Out of the pension which the Minister puts at 25/-, that man has from 13/- to 15/- a week left to maintain himself, his wife and four children. Might I address this question to the Minister: How does he think that man can feed himself, his wife and children and discharge his responsibilities as a citizen on an allowance of from 13/- to 15/- a week. How could he do so in the City of Dublin to-day? I venture to say that it is a physical impossibility. Remember, the man is totally disabled, and very likely will never get beyond that stage, so that the future before him is one of endeavouring to maintain himself, his wife and children on a miserable pension of 25/- a week. The very fact of having to endeavour to subsist on that inadequate weekly pension is enough to prevent a man making the slightest recovery from his disability.

In the case of death from disease, it is provided that a lump sum of £300 shall be given. Deputy Johnson has pointed out that it is very easy for people who are unaccustomed to dealing with large sums of money, and who are not very provident, to dissipate £300 very quickly. Then, without any weekly pension and without any means of maintaining the children, in the course of time they become candidates for admission to a county home. As the Workmen's Compensation Departmental Committee recommended the idea of a final lump sum payment should be got away from. The tendency should be to pay a weekly contribution in respect of young children, so as to ensure that the children of a deceased soldier shall not have to enter a county home. There should be a weekly income so as to keep the children in the state of comfort that they would enjoy if their breadwinner was alive.

In the case of pensions for disease it is necessary, as Deputies have pointed out, to be 80 per cent. disabled in order to get any pension. In other words, it is necessary to be four-fifths disabled from the normal capacity to earn a livelihood before any pension is granted. I put it to the Minister that that is an unreasonably high percentage. I put it to him that 80 per cent. is altogether too high a standard to set in the case of such a pension. The minimum standard ought to be very much lower than 80 per cent. From time to time Deputies have brought cases such as have been outlined by Deputy Byrne and Deputy Hogan before Ministers. Deputies of all parties believed that the new Pensions Bill would cover these cases. Apparently it will not. I would suggest to the Minister, in view of the general demands made in the House and the cases mentioned, that they should be covered on the Committee Stage. He should arrange by then to extend the scope of the Bill so as to include them. It has been very fashionable lately for Ministers to tell electors that the country is progressing and that everything is going well with the State. That does not fit in with the miserable pensions it is proposed to pay under this Bill. If Ministers are going to be consistent let us have some evidence of the prosperity and of the brightness and improved conditions they talk about. I must confess that the attitude taken up in this Bill is not such as should be taken to provide pensions for those who have served the State, and who, in an endeavour to do so, sacrificed life and limb.

Mr. DAVIN

I am not going to recite the detailed particulars of cases that have come under my notice. They have been submitted to the Department of Defence and turned down. In the ordinary course it was expected that they would be dealt with under an amending Bill. I want to endeavour to ascertain from the Minister some definite statement as to the method in which the Bill is going to be administered. I think most of us know that the administration of the Army Pensions Act has been very slow. I am not sure if I am correct in stating that only about half the applications have yet gone through.

Mr. HUGHES

You are quite wrong in that.

Mr. DAVIN

When replying the Minister can deal with that. I take the view that if this House in its wisdom—as it did some time ago—thought fit to bring in a measure to give pensions to men who gave good service to the State in pre-Truce days, and subsequently in the National Army, but who suffered no physical disability, there is a far greated obligation on the taxpayers and the Government in office at present to make reasonable and generous provision for the dependents of those who died in the service of the State.

I will cite one case of a man about whom I receive communications monthly. Similar communications were addressed to the Minister for Defence, without effect. This man joined the Irish Republican Army in 1915, and subsequently joined the National Army in 1922. He contracted rheumatism as a result of which he died in the service on 5th January, 1924. He leaves a wife and two children, one of whom was born five months after his death. I brought this case under the notice of the President when he was Minister for Defence, informing him that, subsequent to the death of the breadwinner, the wife and children were actually dependent on assistance that they got from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. At the time the President forwarded a grant of £30 from the Dáil's special fund. In the letter dated 29th August, 1924, it was stated that it was intended to introduce legislation the next year amending the Army Pensions Act in certain respects, and that it might be possible under the amended Act to give the claim further consideration. That is two years and five months ago, but, as far as I know, the widow and children are still dependent on the assistance of the Society of the St. Vincent de Paul. I can give the Minister the name and reference number. The particulars are already in his Department.

Assuming that this Bill passes in the course of the next couple of months, how long does the Minister intend to wait before the Board is set up? How long will it be before a case of that kind is dealt with? I take it this is not an exceptional case. It might not be by any means the worst kind of case that the Minister ever came across. But I do say that if the administration of this Act, when passed, is as slow as that of the Army Pensions Act, it will be some considerable time before this woman may hope to get anything out of it. I could go on citing cases in the same way as Deputy Byrne has done, but I will not take up the time of the Dáil. I would, however, urge on the Minister that when this Bill becomes law—and I hope it will be amended in many ways before it does—he should regard it as his duty to get the Board working immediately in order to deal with these cases without delay.

Deputy Johnson referred to the cases of soldiers who were accidentially shot while on service, for which no provision has previously been made, and for which, apparently, no provision is being made in this Bill. I hope the Minister will amend the Bill in such a way as will enable cases of that kind to be dealt with and provision made for the dependents of young men who lost their lives by an accident of that kind while in the Army. I came across the case of a young fellow in my own constituency who was shot in a barracks. The remains were brought home to his mother's place, but she was not informed whether any military inquiry had been held. No inquest had been held, and nothing has been done for that woman since. When I raised the case with the Minister for Defence, and asked if anything could be done for her, an Army inquiry was ordered and apparently held, and information given to me, which I subsequently sent on to the dependents, that the shot which killed the young soldier was fired without authority, or against the regulations, as Deputy Byrne said, which were then supposed to be in existence. I never heard of regulations that had any binding force during the earlier stages of the formation of the National Army, and I think the Minister should not fall back upon the alleged regulations that were then supposed to be in existence for the purpose of evading liability in a case of this kind.

Deputy Mulcahy probably has a far greater knowledge of the kind of cases that should be dealt with under this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will take serious notice of the criticism offered by the Deputy this evening. I am concerned more than anything else with the method of administering the measure. I want to know if the Minister intends to set up the Board right away and to give definite instructions to go ahead as quickly as possible and deal with the very bad cases of the type I have quoted and do something as soon as possible for the dependants of people who have lost their lives while giving service in the Army, some of whom gave long service previously in the I.R.A.

Perhaps the Minister will also say whether it will be necessary for all persons who consider their cases come under the Bill to make fresh applications. I believe that most of the cases which Deputies are concerned with are already on the files of the Department. I wonder will the files be available for the Board which is to be set up, or will it be necessary for the parties concerned to make fresh applications and give details when the Bill becomes an Act. There are some valuable documents in the Department which, probably, could not be secured without trouble if fresh applications have to be submitted. Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether all the information that should be on the files in his office will be at the disposal of the Board, in dealing with the applications when they come before them.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I appreciate the fact that the Minister has at last brought in this Bill. I am always very slow to support any new Act that means the expenditure of considerable public money, but I feel that no Deputy could oppose this Bill, in view of the circumstances which surround the cases with which it deals. The Government has made very generous provision— some people would say too ample provision, and I would agree with them— for those who had service in the old Republican Armies and in the National Army under the Military Service Pensions Act. A very considerable amount of public money has been disbursed under that Act to men who are perfectly fit, and who are capable of earning a livelihood, and who in many cases are earning a very good livelihood, in addition to what they receive under the Act. But we have a great many hard cases which have not been dealt with so far. My attention has been directed to some cases in my own county, and I agree that they are extremely hard cases and that it is time that they should be dealt with. I quite recognise that the Minister had a very difficult job in getting this Bill drafted owing to the peculiar conditions under which the National Army was formed. I also agree that it is absolutely necessary that the examination of the cases should be very stringent in view of the difficulty in finding out the particulars in connection with the claims which have been made. I am perfectly sure that a great many bogus claims will be made, and I would not support anything that would mean that bogus claims should be recognised.

I want to emphasise one or two suggestions that have already been made, particularly as regards the cases of soldiers injured or killed through an accident of some kind, not due to ordinary service, since October, 1923. For instance, I know of a young man who was very severely injured by an explosion which took place in a military garage. A flying portion of the engine of a motor car hit him on the head and practically destroyed the sight of one eye. That young man got no pension of any kind on his discharge from the Army and has been out of work since, and is to a large extent incapable of working owing to his disability. As far as I know, no provision is made in the present Bill for meeting cases of that kind.

I would disagree with the statement of Deputy Mulcahy in regard to the connection between pensions under this Bill and under the Military Service Pensions Act. I understood the Deputy to say that it was his desire that a certain section of the Military Service Pensions Act should be amended in such a way that, even though a man in receipt of a disability pension is also in receipt of a military service pension, he should still continue to draw the full military service pension, and that it should not be affected by the disability pension. I do not agree with that suggestion. When it comes to the expenditure of public money, we should not be lavish and throw around unnecessarily the money of the taxpayers. While it is absolutely necessary to meet hard cases as reasonably as we can, there is no reason why certain people should be placed in a specially selected position by this Bill or any other Pensions Bill.

GENERAL MULCAHY

Perhaps the Deputy will say what is the specially selected position we are asking people to be put in?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

As I understood the Deputy's statement, it was that men should draw at the same time a disability pension and a full military service pension. Is that not a specially selected position? I may have misunderstood the Deputy's statement, but that is my interpretation of it.

General MULCAHY

My point was that a man who is entitled to a disability pension on discharge from the Army should not be reduced in his disability pension if he is also entitled to a service pension. It is not every person discharged from the Army who is entitled to a service pension. The service pension would be given purely for service, and a wounds pension purely for wounds.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I think that does not change the point of view. It means in effect that some men in certain cases would be entitled to the full amount of the two pensions, each pension having no reference to the other. I say again that I disagree with that suggestion. I have nothing further to say beyond that I hope that the Bill will be passed in the shortest possible time. I quite agree with the Deputies who have spoken that it is extremely difficult, having regard to the structure of the Bill, to understand it, but I feel pretty certain that we should be able to hammer out a reasonably good Bill with the help of Deputies.

Mr. LYONS

I wish to congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before the Dáil. We have been promised it for years, and now that it has arrived I hope that it is really meant to do good to the dependents of the men who laid down their lives for the freedom of this country. I agree that the Minister has done everything in his power to bring forward a Bill that, in his opinion, would do justice to the dependents of the men who died, but I regret very much that I do not see anything in the Bill that will enable the Minister to give some little compensation to men who died in 1923 and 1924 from disease contracted while serving both in the I.R.A. and the National Army. Several of these sad cases have been brought to my notice in Westmeath and Longford, even where the dependents of these men were not able to obtain £10 for the burial expenses. We had, unfortunately, in that constituency four or five very sad instances where young men were accidentally shot. These young men were the sole support of their parents, and since their death these poor people are placed in the awful position that they are absolutely destitute and have had to apply to the county board of health for some relief. On the other hand, if their sons had not joined the National Army or responded to the call they would be in a position to give some little help towards the maintenance of their parents. I sincerely hope the Minister will take into account such cases as these in which absolute destitution prevails as a direct result of the death of these young men.

I cannot for a moment imagine how the Minister can maintain that a man who has only forty per cent. of his earning capacity and who will be entitled to a sum of 10s. 9d. per week, with 4s. marriage allowance, can live on that allowance. If a man loses an arm, that represents fifty per cent. of his earning capacity, and as a private soldier he will be entitled to £1 1s. per week, and if he has a wife, 5s. extra. If that man was a carpenter, mason, or some other class of artisan, surely his pay before he joined the Army would be more than £2 2s. per week. On the other hand, if the man's earning capacity is reduced by fifty per cent., as set out by the Minister in this Bill, how can he as a carpenter ever occupy the position he occupied prior to joining the Army? The same thing applies to a painter, a slater, or any other tradesman. It is all very well for Deputy Mulcahy to state here that when a man loses his arm it is a clean wound. It is a clean wound and it may not probably affect his health in other ways, but it does affect his earning capacity to the extent that he cannot earn anything. It is not fifty per cent. of his earning capacity that is gone; his entire capacity as a tradesman is gone. Even as an agricultural labourer no farmer will employ a man who has only one arm or hand to go out and bind his corn, dig potatoes or do any other agricultural work.

I hold that some better provision should be made for men who have lost the use of an arm or leg. A fifty per cent. pension at the rate of £1 1s. per week is not sufficient, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take these facts into account. I brought before the Dáil here on one occasion the case of a man who resided in Co. Longford. That man was earning £4 10s. per week before he joined the National Army. Now he is in receipt of 16s. 9d. per week and 5s. for his wife and six children. Surely that is not adequate compensation for a man who offered his services to the State for the purpose of seeing that law and order were maintained and that the property of the citizens of the State was safeguarded. I have no criticism to offer to the Minister on the drafting of the Bill. I do say he has gone a good way when you take into account the men who went out in 1916, who have suffered and who have contracted disease from the sufferings they endured at the time. Section 13 of this Bill provides for the Irish Volunteers and Citizen Army and other men who had the courage at the time to take their lives in their hands to obtain for this country some class of freedom from a foreign Power.

I certainly congratulate the Minister on that section, and I disagree with Deputy Johnson. To the best of my recollection he said that men who were Irish Volunteers or members of the Citizen Army and who might have been out against this Government in 1922 would be entitled to a pension under this section, or that it contained no provision to disqualify them.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy has entirely misunderstood what I said on that matter. I asked the Minister if he would make it clear that it was the intention of the Bill—what I believed was the consequence of the Bill—that men who had served in the I.R.A. and did not serve in the National Army, but continued in the I.R.A. after the setting up of the National Army, and were wounded because of that service, will come under the provisions of the Bill. I was not thinking at all of any service in the I.R.A. against the National Army. That is not the question involved, so that the Deputy is mistaken in his interpretation.

Mr. LYONS

I am very pleased to hear that explanation from Deputy Johnson, because I felt sure that Deputy Johnson was not in any way prejudiced towards members of the I.R.A.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know what the Deputy is talking about, but if he thinks that I am asking that pensions should be given to men because of their service against the National Army he is wrong.

Mr. LYONS

I think that any man who is unable to obtain a means of livelihood because he is compelled to be in a hospital or dependent on some relative, and that that state is primarily due to activities since 1916, should certainly be entitled to serious consideration. But I would not suggest that men who were in good health at the time of the Treaty, and who have contracted bad health since by having been out against the National Army should get pensions. Widows of private soldiers are allowed 17/6 per week during widowhood, and a gratuity of £45 10s. if they re-marry. That is, of course, an encouragement for them to marry again. Whilst 17/6 is given to the mother, only 5/- is given for the first child and 3/6 for each other child. Could the Minister possibly support a child on 5/- a week?

Mr. HUGHES

I am not going into that question.

Mr. LYONS

He knows well that he could not. Why not make some suitable provision for rearing and maintaining the children of these men in some degree of comfort and not in slavery? Because he is the child of a private soldier, must he go ragged through the streets? That soldier has been killed to maintain this Government and to safeguard life and property, and should we not offer more adequate provision than 5/- a week for his child? I hold that it is an absolute impossibility for any widow to maintain, clothe, and educate her children on these allowances. The Government will be degraded and looked upon as slave-drivers by the public boards, where these women must apply for some help to maintain their families. If such a woman is delicate she cannot go out to work, and if the children are too young she cannot leave them with anyone to look after them while she is away. Something should be done to enable such women to maintain their children in decency and not have them running through the streets asking people for a penny because their father was a soldier and was killed fighting for the Irish Free State. It is up to the Minister to make some better provision for the upkeep of these children, particularly for the children of the poorer men. If an officer or a man had some property or income of his own to leave to his widow, the 5/- would be some help, but where a woman was absolutely dependent on her husband's earnings she is surely entitled to something more than 5/- a week for her child.

No Deputy has mentioned the Fourth Schedule, where 30 per cent. is mentioned. Where a man loses three fingers of his right hand or all the toes of both feet he is entitled to 30 per cent., or 12/7 per week, with 3/- marriage allowance. The Minister can not believe that a man who has lost all the toes of both feet will be able to earn 70 per cent. of his previous wages. Such a man would be a cripple and would not be employed by anybody. If there are any such cases I think something more should be done for them. I have not met such a case. I met a case where a man lost his foot, and he is in receipt of 12/6 a week. I know another case where a man lost an arm. He was in receipt of £1 1s. a week and has been paid off with a gratuity of £50, though his earning capacity is finished. I welcome and appreciate the efforts of the Minister to do something for the widows and orphans of the men who have died, particularly for the widows of those men who have died through contracting disease.

Mr. SHAW

I have not studied the Bill sufficiently to know if the small matters in which I am interested are included in it. A man who was serving in Athlone barracks was killed when a mine accidentally exploded, but his mother has not received any pension or gratuity whatever. This matter was raised when the President was in Athlone recently, and he mentioned that this particular case and the cases of the officers who were killed in the flying accident, and perhaps two or three others, would be specifically dealt with in this Bill. I would like the Minister to state if those cases are to be dealt with.

Mr. HUGHES

It seems that the principal objection to this Bill, as in the case of every other Bill of its class, is that it does not go far enough. I can understand that; it is quite natural that Deputies should say that this or that pension or amount should be given, that the amount is not sufficient that something more should be done. That, as I say, is quite natural, and in a way I am surprised that I did not hear more of it. But the criticism of the Bill on the whole has been directed particularly against that one phase of it. As far as I can judge, with regard to the resources of the country to pay pensions, I think we have gone as far in this Bill as it is possible to go in the circumstances, taking into account our financial difficulties, and further, taking into account the number of people who are at present drawing pensions. It is impossible to state at the moment how many people will draw pensions under the Bill if it becomes an Act, but it is anticipated that we will have 20,000 applications. How many of these will be successful I am not in the position to say, and therefore I can give no estimate of the charge on the taxpayers that the Bill will involve. But there is one thing that I do know, and that is that the amount will be pretty considerable and that it will take some time to deal with the cases owing to their peculiar circumstances. As has been pointed out, a wound is something that you can see; it is there, and it is easy for anybody to see whether that wound has impaired the earning capacity of the individual or not. But it is a different question altogether when you come to the case of disease. You must first find out whether the man had the disease when he came into the National Army, the Volunteers, or the Citizen Army, or whether his disease is attributable to service in any of these forces.

Mr. DAVIN

Is it not correct to state that most of these particulars have already been placed in the hands of the Department, and could not the Minister get that preliminary information by looking up the files that contain it?

Mr. HUGHES

There were no cases of disease under the 1923 Act and therefore there should be no information with regard to disease in my Department. There should be information about wounds, and wounds have been dealt with under that Act. But as far as wounds are concerned, what this Bill does is to bring in the period between the 30th September, 1923, and 1st October, 1924. That period of a year was not covered in the 1923 Act, and what this Bill purports to do is to bring in that year as far as wounds are concerned, and to put these people on the self-same footing as the people who got wound pensions under the 1923 Act. Disease is on quite a different plane, and what the board that will be set up under the Bill will have to find out is whether or not disease was attributable to service. In that their particular difficulty will lie.

The 80 per cent. degree of disability set down in the Bill has been criticised from more than one side of the House. No matter what percentage was set down—70 per cent. or 60 per cent.—the same cry would have come: " Why should a man who has 5 per cent. less disability not get a pension?" But when we were trying to arrange what would be fair and just to the country and to the people we arrived at the figure of 80 per cent. as a reasonable and just figure. If we had said 75 per cent. or 70 per cent. the same cause of complaint would remain. You must arrive at some figure, and 80 per cent., in my opinion, is a figure which, while it may not reach every individual who has contracted disease in the times we have passed through, will certainly bring in many cases of serious incapacity and will remedy an injustice which I admit has existed up to the present. Deputy Johnson raised a good may questions— the estimate of the cost, the scale of pensions, the 80 per cent. disability, and, I think, Section 13. Section 13 deals with the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, and it also makes it clear that a person who served in either of these forces and who did not serve in the National Army is entitled to a pension.

Mr. JOHNSON

Provided he had 80 per cent. disability.

Mr. HUGHES

For either wounds or disablement. If he had 80 per cent. disability, and in order to attain that disability, if it is a progressive one, he has four years in which to arrive at it. Under the 1923 Act gratuities in certain cases were £100 and £60. Under this Bill gratuities up to £300 may be given. That is a considerable advance on the 1923 Act. I think I should go over the Bill, section by section, or at least over the principal sections in the Bill, and just give a short explanation of what they contain. I do not propose to give an exhaustive explanation. I think I might start with Section 9. The other sections up to Section 9 are, more or less, definition sections. Section 9 deals altogether with disablement caused by disease, where are persons were discharged from the forces before the 1st October, 1924, and where the disease was incurred in the period between the 1st April, 1922, and the 30th September, 1924. That section has also a provision that if the disease reached 80 per cent. within four years from the date of the discharge the soldier may be granted a pension.

Section 10 provides that where a person was discharged from the forces on or after the 1st October, 1924, and incurred disease in the period commencing on the 1st April, 1922, and ending on the 30th day of September, 1924, the position will be as in Section 9. Section 11 brings in persons who were not brought in under the 1923 Act —from the period between the 30th September, 1923, up to the 1st October, 1924. That is the year that intervened, and Section 11 brings in those people. Section 12 deals with the people who were discharged after the 1st of October, 1924, and those people come under, for the first time, the graduated or rank scale. I think that is only quite fair. Up to that date, there were not properly defined ranks in the army. When the Defence Forces Act came into operation on the 1st October, 1924, commissions and ranks were properly settled for the first time, so that we started on the graduated scale from that date. Deputy Johnson, I think, asked a question as to what would happen to the soldier who was wounded before the 24th October but not discharged until after the 1st October, 1924, provided he was suffering from a disability of 20 per cent. or over. The gratuity in that case would not exceed £40 altogether, with a further gratuity of £2 10s. Od. for each year of service in the forces. I think the Deputy complained that the soldier is worse off under the present Bill than he would be under the old Act of 1923. But under the old Act of 1923 he did not get £2 10s. for every year of service that he had given. He simply got the lump sum laid down. The rank element comes in there but, in my opinion, it will not make much difference. It will probably work out much in the same way.

The first sub-section of Section 14 deals with the dependents of persons who died before the 1st October, 1924, while serving in the forces, or died within four years from the date of discharge, from disease attributable to service in the forces. In the case of persons who served in the Volunteers or who served in the Irish Citizen Army and died before the 7th December, 1922, and whose death was due solely to disease attributable to his military service, a gratuity will be payable to the dependents.

Mr. LYONS

May I ask, will the mothers and sisters of the deceased be entitled to any pension?

Mr. HUGHES

Yes. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 deals with the dependents of a person who dies after the 1st October, 1924, from disease attributable to service in the period April, 1922—September, 1924, and with dependents of persons discharged after 1st October, 1924, and dying within four years thereafter. It also deals with persons who belonged to the Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army in the same way. Section 15 deals with people who were killed on or after the 1st October, 1923, and before the 1st October, 1924, in the course of their duty as members of the forces, or who died from wounds received in that period or within four years afterwards. The effect of the section would be the same as that of the third schedule of the Army Pensions Act, 1923. That deals with the dependents of persons killed or wounded. It extends the Act of 1923 to cover the period up to the 30th September, 1924.

Mr. LYONS

Will the dependents of men who have been accidentally shot in that period be entitled to a pension?

Mr. HUGHES

It all depends on how it happened—if it was not through their own serious negligence or misconduct.

Mr. LYONS

I mean through accident, as in the case of the soldier in Streamstown.

Mr. HUGHES

I have not the facts of the Streamstown case, and I cannot recollect it.

Mr. LYONS

That was where the soldier, Bracken, was killed.

Mr. HUGHES

I do not know the particular case to which the Deputy refers.

Mr. DAVIN

Could the Minister inform the Dáil how many cases come under that head?

Mr. HUGHES

I could not give the number.

Mr. DAVIN

Would it not be very small?

Mr. HUGHES

It would be very small, but I could not give the number. Section 16 prescribes that applications should be made to the Minister in the prescribed form, and Section 17 puts a time limit of twelve months for making the application, and it also sets out that " every application by a person who was discharged from the Forces (whether before or after the passing of this Act) for the grant of a disability pension under this Act shall be made within four years after the date of such discharge." Section 18 sets out that applicants who were refused pensions under the 1923 Act on the ground that the Act did not apply to them can now apply again under this Act if the Principal Act, as amended, applies to them.

Mr. LYONS

Take the case where a man has been granted an inadequate pension. Will such a man get permission to come before the Board of Advisors?

Mr. HUGHES

It all depends on whether the pension is a final pension or not. If his pension is not a final pension—if he has only got it for six or twelve months—he may, but once he gets a final pension the matter is ended.

Mr. LYONS

If it is not final, he can apply again?

Mr. HUGHES

If it is not final he is brought before the Board and examined again. Section 19 prohibits double pensions, and Section 20 is to cover travelling expenses.

Mr. LYONS

In the case of Section 19, where the mother receives a pension and dies some time afterwards, would the father in that case be entitled to a pension?

Mr. HUGHES

I do not understand the point the Deputy is making.

Mr. LYONS

I refer to a case in which the pension is only granted to the mother of the deceased soldier, and that woman dies, say, twelve months afterwards, the father of the soldier being still alive.

Mr. HUGHES

That could not happen. The mother would not get it if the father were alive. Only one of them would get the pension.

Mr. LYONS

Will the pension be continued to either parent? If the mother dies, will the pension die with her?

Mr. HUGHES

If either parent is alive and is entitled to get the pension on behalf of the deceased person, the pension will be paid to him or her—it does not matter which.

Mr. LYONS

I am not quite clear on that point yet.

Major COOPER

Could the Minister arrange to deal with Deputy Lyons privately before we reach the next stage of the Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

An excellent suggestion!

Mr. LYONS

I do not desire any private interview.

Mr. HUGHES

Section 22 makes it possible for the Minister to direct payment of the pension for the purpose of the maintenance of the pensioner's wife or child, if he thinks that the pensioner is not doing his duty by his family. I think that is a very good provision. Section 23 provides that where a person has a 20 per cent. disability from wounds and a 60 per cent. disability from disease, the two may be added together for the purpose of arriving at the full amount of disability— 80 per cent. Section 24 provides for medical treatment. It also provides for the payment of funeral expenses. Section 25 provides for payment of pensions monthly in advance.

As regards the Schedules, the only point that arises, I think, is that made by Deputy Johnson on the Fourth Schedule. That had been seen, and it will be amended. All that is necessary is to delete the words " degree of disablement" at the top of what is known as the first column. We will then have no first column under that heading. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised.

Mr. DAVIN

Does the Minister seriously suggest that that is a reply to the criticism we have had of the measure?

Mr. HUGHES

I do.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

Would the Minister indicate the position as regards the case I put to him, of the man who dies in action with his rifle in his fist? There is no provision in the Bill by which that man's dependents can be compensated. The Bill definitely refers to persons who are " killed." This man died in action, as is clearly proved by a high officer who knows what " action" means. Has the Minister made any attempt to tell me what the meaning of the word "killed" is?

Mr. HUGHES

If the man referred to by Deputy Hogan was suffering from any particular disease and if he got frightened, or anything of that kind, and that brought on his death, certainly I think the case does not come within the provisions of the Bill, because he was not either killed or wounded. If it can be proved that the man was in normal health on the particular occasion that he went out and that he died in action, he would then come under the provisions of the Bill. That is where the difficulty would come in for the Medical Board which would be examining these cases. They would have to determine whether the man was or was not in good health at the particular time that he went out.

Mr. HOGAN

Am I to take that as a definition of the word "killed"?

Mr. HUGHES

The man was not killed.

Mr. HOGAN

Does the Minister suggest that a man who spent years in the Royal Irish Constabulary was admitted to that Force in ill-health and that, because of close pursuit by Crown Forces, he died of fright? It is unfair to the memory of a man who died for his country to say that he died of fright?

Mr. HUGHES

I am not suggesting any such thing. This man probably went into the R.I.C. in the best of health, but the Deputy does not know, nor do I, what his state of health was when he left the R.I.C.

Mr. HOGAN

How does the Minister suggest he is going to discover that now?

Mr. HUGHES

I have no means of discovering it, outside the provisions of this Bill. The onus is on the dependents of the deceased person to prove that he was in normal health. I pass no aspersion on the man whatever. But without casting any aspersion on any volunteer or soldier, I do say that even in ordinary circumstances accidents do occure, and that it is impossible to account for death in some cases. This may be a case of that kind, or it may not. It is quite possible that that man went into the R.I.C. fit and well. He served a number of years in that force, but the question remains whether, when he left the R.I.C., he was a fit man or not.

Mr. LYONS

Would such a man not be medically examined before joining the National Army?

Mr. DAVIN

Does the Minister state that none of those who joined the National Army in 1922 was medically examined on or before admission?

Mr. HUGHES

I take it that if there was a medical examination of the men who joined the National Army in 1922, it must have been a cursory examination.

Mr. DAVIN

Was there a medical examination or was there not?

Mr. HUGHES

I was not connected with the Army, and I was not Minister for Defence at the time and I cannot tell the Deputy whether there was or not. But I do know that there were 50,000 men admitted to the Army in a very short period, and I should be surprised if all these men were medically examined.

Mr. DAVIN

This is not fair.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is cross-examination.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister for Defence, whether he was then Minister or not, is responsible for what happened, and he should be acquainted with the working of his Department. Are we to understand that there was no medical examination of those who entered the Army in 1922 before admission, and if so, during what period was there medical examination?

Mr. HUGHES

I do not think the man referred to was in the Army—I think he was a Volunteer.

Mr. DAVIN

I am dealing with the general question. I asked a general question.

Mr. HUGHES

I am not in a position to say now whether every man of the 50,000 who joined the National Army in the particular period referred to was medically examined. If they were, it is beyond what I would have considered practicable at the time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister deal with the case that Deputy Hogan has raised? The present Bill, so far as I can see, does not vary the phraseology of the Act in respect of persons who met their deaths in the circumstances described. The Army Medical Board has turned down such a case. The man, it was held, was not killed in the course of his duty, and, therefore, his widow was not granted a pension. Is it possible when the same Board is going to deal with cases that any change may take place?

Mr. HUGHES

The same Board will not be dealing with them.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister make it clear that the new Board now is going to deal with the applications made?

Mr. HUGHES

A new Board will be dealing with all the applications that are made under this Bill when it becomes an Act. There will be two medical gentlemen and another person to be selected who will, probably, be a lawyer —he may not. But as far as the present Board are concerned, whether we are willing to continue their services or not, they cannot possibly act because there are two medical people provided on this Board with a third man, who will be unprofessional as far as medical services are concerned.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to take it that that Board's decision on such an application is to be final in the matter and that the interpretation of killing is left with that Board?

Mr. HUGHES

Their decision, as far as medical matters are concerned, I think, must be final.

Mr. JOHNSON

This is not a medical matter. It is an interpretation of the Act as to whether a man is killed as a result of the pursuit of enemy forces.

Mr. HUGHES

Of course, it will be final. It cannot be otherwise. They are free to interpret the Act and to see that everyone entitled to a pension gets it.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I am not satisfied that this thing should be left to the decision of a medical board. I want to know if the Minister is going to say whether that man comes within the term "killed." or if not will he say whether some term will be introduced that will cover the case? I think the Minister himself will admit that this man gave his life as well as if he were shot through the heart or head.

Mr. HUGHES

I admit a good deal of the Deputy's contention, but I cannot go the whole way. I will consider the matter between now and probably the next stage, but as far as I can see at present, and as far as the Bill is concerned, it all depends on what state the man came into the Volunteers, whether he was 80 per cent. or 50 per cent. disabled when he came in. I do not know, but I will give the matter further consideration.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister—he was asked during the debate, but did not reply—consider the advisability of bringing under the provisions of the Bill the cases of the dependents of those who were shot on active service, whether due to misconduct or otherwise, but before he gives a final decision he must find how many of those cases have taken place, and what the estimated cost would be of their inclusion within the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. HUGHES

The Deputy wanted to know whether the people who died from the result of misconduct or serious negligence——

Mr. DAVIN

No, I said shot by accident.

Mr. HUGHES

If death was not attributable to serious negligence on their part they will come under the Bill.

Mr. DAVIN

Shot by other soldiers in the National Army.

Mr. HUGHES

That is another question altogether. The question of negligence does not come in there.

Mr. DAVIN

It does. I have a case on the file where a soldier was shot by another while on active service. They would not give anything to the mother because it was alleged to be due to misconduct on the part of the man who was shot. There were very few of those cases.

Mr. HUGHES

Without going into the case and getting every particular I cannot say now whether that man was entitled to a pension or not.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister take notice of the phrase which says "in the course of his duty"? That is a phrase certain to result in innumerable difficulties. Was that man who was sleeping in this bed and shot by a colleague "accidentally killed in the course of his duty?"

General MULCAHY

He was.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would say he was, but will that particular court or board be compelled by the phrase to decide that? I say "no." There is too great a doubt in it, and I point out, and I ask the Ceann Comhairle to point out, that any amendment to this Bill that may be intended to add to the charge of the State, cannot be brought forward by Deputies, and all those matters will have to be discussed on the Money Resolution.

Mr. DAVIN

The case I have in mind is that of a soldier coming to his barracks being challenged by the sentry on duty for the third time and declining to answer. He was fired on by the sentry and shot dead. That main was guilty of misconduct because he did not answer the query of the sentry. It is a flimsy case.

Mr. HUGHES

If the Deputy has no better case than that a man who was challenged, in his senses, did not reply to the challenge I do not know how the sentry could get out of doing his duty in that matter. It was absolutely his duty, if he challenged him properly and he did not reply, to see that he did not advance any further. If the Deputy has no better case I do not see that he has any case at all.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are getting into a discussion of particular cases. There is a certain justification for it because, as Deputy Johnson points out, there is a certain type of amendment which cannot be moved by ordinary Deputies, that is, Deputies who are not members of the Executive Council, on the Committee Stage. A certain amount of what has taken place could be introduced in an amendment say, on a definition, and so on, and would more properly take place on a Committee Stage and would be more properly committee work. It is a kind of Bill, if I may venture to prophesy, that will have two Committee Stages; probably there will be plenty of opportunity later on, but we will never reach any finality now by going into cases which cannot be discussed unless all the facts are made clear. If, in the interval between now and the Committee Stage, certain cases were examined and agreement reached, there would be no difficulty in finding a definition. That is the only successful way to do it.

Mr. DAVIN

If the Minister would acquaint himself with the history of the Army previous to his taking up his present position and come to the Dáil prepared to answer questions on it, it would not be difficult to get on with the Committee Stage.

Mr. HUGHES

If the Deputy gives me notice of any question on the history of the Army I will answer it, but I cannot undertake to answer questions, put at random from any Deputy, on the history of the Army, four or five years back.

Mr. DAVIN

If you are discussing cases under this Bill you must know something of what you are talking about.

Mr. HUGHES

That is a different matter altogether.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Mr. HUGHES

We may take the Committee Stage on Tuesday week.

Major COOPER

Will the Minister give us a little longer time? We will have to be careful in framing our amendments, and the Bill was not an easy one to draft amendments to, before we had the lucid explanation of the Minister.

Mr. JOHNSON

When does the Minister propose to bring in the Financial Resolution, because I anticipate that much of the Committee Stage discussion will have to take place on the Financial Resolution?

Mr. HUGHES

Before the Committee Stage is the usual time to bring it in.

Mr. JOHNSON

That means this day week.

Mr. HUGHES

If the House desires a longer time I have no objection, but I think this day week is reasonable.

Major COOPER

I suggest that the Minister should give us until the Thursday of next week so as to give a longer time to draft amendments. That would not seriously delay the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to make it clear that it is not possible for private Deputies to move, on the Committee Stage, amendments which will increase the charge upon the State. Therefore, we shall not be entitled to move amendments to bring cases which, in our mind, are necessary to be brought in, and we shall have to bring forward instances, such as we referred to, on the Financial Resolution. I suggest to the Minister that we may make a conclusive case for their inclusion in the Bill on the Financial Resolution, and that there ought to be time between that and the Committee Stage to allow the Minister to bring forward amendments in accordance with the cases made during the Financial Resolution discussion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

May I point out to Deputy Cooper that if the discussion is held up until Thursday of next week that might mean that when the House adjourns this week we cannot meet until Thursday next week.

Major COOPER

If we do not take the Committee Stage until Thursday amendments could be lodged up to Tuesday; if on Tuesday, amendments would have to be lodged on Friday or early on Saturday. It is a technical matter. There are many British statutes that would have to be consulted.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If we say Tuesday for the Committee Stage the last day for receiving amendments would clearly be Saturday, because apart from the fact that Deputies want to have some time to draft amendments there is also the necessity for the Minister to have time to examine them. They will be largely amendments, as Deputy Johnson pointed out, which, if not adopted by the Minister in some form or other, would fail for reasons of order. If the Committee Stage is taken on Wednesday amendments would have to be in on Monday, and if taken on Thursday the amendments would have to be in on Tuesday. With regard to Deputy Johnson's point about the Money Resolution, if the Money Resolution is fixed for a particular day and the Minister is convinced by reference to particular amendments put in that certain things ought to be done in the Bill it will be always open to discharge the order for Committee.

It would take a longer time, perhaps, to bring in a new Money Resolution, if such a thing is probable, but there is no harm in fixing the Money Resolution and the Committee Stage on the same day without both necessarily having to be taken on that day.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Surely amendments have not to be framed on the terms of the Money Resolution? Amendments outside the terms of the Money Resolution will be sent in and will, presumably, appear on the Order Paper.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The difficulty is that amendments outside the Money Resolution will be, to the knowledge of Deputies who are used to framing amendments, not in order. The only remedy Deputies have is on the Money Resolution to point out that they want so and so, but that the Money Resolution precludes them from having it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was merely answering Deputy Johnson's point where he seems to insist that there should be a period of days between the Money Resolution and the Committee Stage. There is no necessity for that. If Deputy Johnson wants to put down an amendment on the Committee Stage, which on the terms of the Money Resolution he thinks would be out of order, he can, nevertheless, put his amendment down.

Mr. JOHNSON

It has been my unfortunate habit to frame amendments which are in order, but now I see it is of value to put down amendments which palpably are not in order with a view to getting them discussed on the Resolution.

Captain REDMOND

I presume amendments, if not in order, will not be allowed to be discussed. If they cannot be discussed, why put them down?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There is a misconception on Deputy Johnson's point. I have endeavoured to explain that there may be a necessity, when the Money Resolution is being discussed, to postpone either the Money Resolution itself or the Committee Stage, or both—that is taking an optimistic view of the attitude of the Minister for Defence.

The PRESIDENT

May I ask if Thursday suits Deputy Johnson?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Money Resolution then to be produced on Thursday, and to be circulated, if possible, on Tuesday to Deputies. The Money Resolution is very important. In this case it is the kernel of the whole thing. That may mean the House will adjourn until Thursday.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 3rd February.