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.