Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1929

Vol. 28 No. 8

In Committee on Finance. - Superannuation and Pensions Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

I move the Second Reading of the Superannuation and Pensions Bill. The purpose of the Bill is twofold. As Deputies are aware, provision was made in the Superannuation and Pensions Act for the granting of pensions to former members of the R.I.C. who had been dismissed or who had resigned in consequence of their national sympathies, so that they should receive pensions approximately equal to those they would have received if they had continued in the R.I.C. up to the date of disbandment. In the actual administration of it men who had served only two or three years were not awarded pensions, the view being taken that the sacrifice they had made was not greater than was made by ordinary civilians in large numbers. Very few of the men who resigned stated they resigned because of their national sympathies. In the great majority of cases they said they resigned for family reasons, or to take up other work, or something of that nature. That was quite natural, because the men who resigned were subject to a great deal of danger. If we were satisfied, after examination, that by their previous or subsequent conduct they resigned really because of their national sympathies we did not pay much attention to the reasons they gave for resigning. A Committee was set up to deal with these cases before the Act was passed. That Committee, amongst other cases, had passed some twenty-one men who had actually succeeded in retiring on the ground of ill-health and getting gratuities from the British authorities.

When the Act was being passed it was believed these men would be entitled to pensions the same as others, but when the Act was being administered advice was received from the Attorney-General, on the question being raised, that the men who retired on medical grounds were men who had neither resigned nor been dismissed, and consequently were not entitled to pensions. This Bill is to enable pensions to be paid to these men. What happened in the case of those men is that they went off on leave and succeeded in inducing friendly doctors to give certificates on grounds which were not justified. They received grants of from £30 to £200 or £300 from the British Government. They were a little more cautious, shall we say, and were paying a little more attention to their own interests than the men who said they had resigned for family reasons or in order to take up other posts. Nevertheless, it is clear that in these cases, or certainly as regards some of them, they will be more closely looked into if this Bill is passed. Certainly in some of these cases they resigned for national motives, and they were advised that as they could get a gratuity they might as well take it. It is proposed to pay these men pensions from the date of the passage of this Bill. They began by getting money where others were satisfied to go without it, and if they are to be at some little disadvantage now, that is not altogether unjustifiable.

With regard to the other part of the Bill, which provides that the widow of a resigned or dismissed R.I.C. man may be paid a pension after his death, the fact that that is now necessary is due to an oversight. The men who actually remained in the R.I.C. and got R.I.C. pensions have this advantage too, that if they die their widows have the pensions, and it is felt in the case of the resigned and dismissed R.I.C. men there should also be provision for a widow's pension. The pension paid to a widow under the British scheme is £30. It is proposed that it shall be paid to the widow if the resigned or dismissed R.I.C. man had been actually married before his resignation or dismissal. I think there are very few pensioners who have actually died leaving widows, and the amount of the cost to the Exchequer under that head will be comparatively small. The total charge that would result from the passing of the Bill will be about £2,000 per annum.

I do not think that any Deputy in the House can congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. This Bill has been promised for a very long time. From time to time we have seen answers given in this House as to the introduction of legislation along the lines that are now embodied in this Bill. As far back as 30th May, 1927, in answer to Deputy O'Connor, the Minister stated that he proposed to introduce legislation to amend Section 5 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923. On 19th October, 1927, in answer to Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll, he stated that instructions had been given for the drafting of a Bill for this purpose and that it would be introduced as soon as possible. I do not think that the House could assume or believe that the draftsman had been from 19th October, 1927, down to the present time drafting two pages of the very simple Bill which is now before us. However, it is in keeping with the rather niggardly way in which this whole matter has been dealt with. Very definite and very clear promises were made to those men at the time they resigned, and subsequently promises were made by the late General Collins that they would be treated no less generously than the men who remained in the force. When a Committee was set up to deal with these cases, even though the Committee recommended a certain number of them, the Government stepped in and disregarded the recommendations of the Committee and refused to deal with particular cases.

The Minister will remember one case where there was very clear and definite proof. That is the case I mentioned here on the Appropriation Bill on the 22nd of November last. I refer to the case of Mr. McElligott, who was what might be called the pivot or leader of these men during the time they assisted and performed the work for which they were to be recompensed afterwards. On 16th November, 1927, a question was asked by Deputy de Valera as to what action the Minister proposed to take with regard to that application. The Minister stated that in view of the changed circumstances he was prepared to reconsider the case. Mr. McElligott, acting on the statement contained in that answer, wrote on 20th November, 1927, to the Minister referring to the answer, and stating the whole facts for the Minister so that he might investigate and deal with the case. There was no reply from the Minister, and when I raised the question here in November last the President suggested that the reason why Mr. McElligott resigned was because of his activities in the Police Union and not because of political or national motives.

However, since then and a few days before this Bill was introduced, Mr. McElligott has been given his pension. At least, he has had a communication from the Department of Finance informing him that his pension has now been granted. If the Government had intended to deal with this question in the decent, honest and honourable way in which it should be dealt with, they could have dealt with it at the very beginning instead of dealing with it as they have done. There was abundant evidence, and that evidence was clearly put before the Minister and the Government, that Mr. McElligott was entitled to a pension. As I stated in November last, that evidence was the evidence of people who were, perhaps, and should be considered by the Minister as being in a position to give very independent proof and very independent evidence, and who were in no way biased or prejudiced as to the conditions under which Mr. McElligott acted, or as to the reasons for his resignation and for his activities afterwards. The Government had all these particulars before them at the time the President suggested that it was because of his activities in connection with the Police Union that he had resigned. It is rather strange that just before this Bill is introduced the Government discover that it was not his activities in connection with the Police Union, but his national activities that brought about his resignation.

This may seem a strong case, but it is not an isolated case. There was a case mentioned here before. That was the case of Mr. Kearney, and it was a very clear case. The only reason that could be given against Mr. Kearney as to why he should not get a pension was that he was associated with Republican activities during the civil strife. Rather a peculiar incident in connection with this case was that four men, apparently four C.I.D. men— at any rate, civilians—went to his house, made certain suggestions and proposed certain arrangements with him. That matter has been raised in the Dáil already and I do not want to go into it now. What I do want to emphasise is that the Government have not acted in that matter in the decent and honest way in which they should have acted, and they have not acted in the spirit in which the promises were given to the men by the late General Collins and others who were at the head of affairs at that time. It has been forcibly borne in on us by deputations that a good many of these men have been in sore straits during the last few years.

It must be a very difficult thing for the Minister to explain how it should take almost two years to draft a Bill, if what he stated was correct, that the Bill had been handed over to the draftsman and instructions given to the draftsman nearly two years ago. It is not a very complicated Bill—only two pages.

With regard to the Bill itself, there are a few matters to which I will refer, but those matters will arise in Committee when some amendment may be necessary. Provision is made for pensions to certain widows, but I have been informed of cases of widows who will not come in under that particular section. That is where the deceased husband's claim has been approved by the Committee, but where he died before the pension was granted. There are some cases of that kind. It would be easy for the Minister to put in an amendment on the Committee Stage that would embody those cases. The Committee that has operated already was set up under conditions that I do not think would allow the whole circumstances and all the evidence to be gone into in the atmosphere in which it might be gone into now.

I suggest if this Bill is intended to be a genuine effort, if there is a genuine intention to deal adequately and honourably with those men who are entitled so to be dealt with, an independent Committee of this House should be set up to investigate all those claims. The Committee that was already at work was a Committee set up in an atmosphere of civil war, when political tension and other feelings ran very high. If the Minister wants to deal with this matter in a way that would be above criticism, in a way that would give satisfaction to all parties and all interests involved, I suggest that the only way to secure that is to set up now, in what we may consider changed circumstances, a Committee representative of the whole House.

There is another matter that the Minister might consider when dealing with this question of the resigned and dismissed R.I.C. I refer to the cases of the Connaught Rangers. There are not many such cases, and the few cases that do exist in which there is definite proof and definite evidence that they are entitled to consideration, are really in a pretty bad way. There have been promises made from time to time that the people involved in the mutiny would be dealt with fairly and decently. So far as I am aware, the only evidence we have in that regard is that some time in April, 1925, a Mrs. Daly walked ten or fifteen miles to receive from Deputy Shaw a sum of £10, which was described in the papers at the time as a present from President Cosgrave. She is a very old woman, and I believe she is in very poor circumstances. Possibly there may be some change with regard to the attitude of the Government as compared with what was said previously on this matter. We are aware that Deputy Cooper, when asked a question about the Connaught Rangers in January, 1926, said that as a loyal subject of the King he believed no punishment was too severe for them. Since then Deputy Cooper has joined the Government ranks, and I do not know whether he has changed the Government feeling or the Government have changed him. I do urge, in view of the promises made to these men and their dependents, and bearing in mind the few cases that exist and the hardship that was inflicted upon these men and their dependents, adequate consideration should be given to the matter by the Minister as to whether he would embody in the Bill some provision that would be satisfactory and so deal with the question once and for all.

I want to state our attitude with regard to this matter of pensions. We stand for granting those pensions on the ground that definite promises were made to those men, and it is the duty of the House and the Government to fulfil those promises. But we do not take up the position that, if pensions are going to be reviewed in this country at any time, these or any other pensions should be outside review. We want to make that position clear, and that is my feeling with regard to the matter, at any rate. This Bill can be made a very effective Bill if the Government want to carry it out in the proper spirit. I suggest the way to do that is to set up a Committee of the House that will investigate all these claims impartially and that will report to the Minister. Then no criticism can be brought forward as to all the cases not having been fairly and clearly dealt with.

I propose to support and, if necessary, to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I am glad to hear from Deputy Ruttledge that the Minister has at last absolved Mr. McElligott from whatever political crimes or offences he was considered to be guilty of in the past. I believe if the payment of pensions to men who were dismissed from the R.I.C. or who resigned for reasons of national sympathy can be justified— and I think this case has been justified all right—then these pensions should, in the first instance, be paid to the people who seduced such a large number of men from their old allegiance to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I have reason to know something about this, because in 1918 I happened to be the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of the Trade Union Congress when Mr. McElligott, with other men, sought an interview in secret session so that they might explain to the representatives of the organised Labour movement at the time the reasons they were associated with this agitation, and so that they might also endeavour to secure whatever support the Labour movement could give their former colleagues to lay down their arms and not assist the British Government in the fight which they were then carrying on against those who stood for the freedom of the country. Mr. McElligott was the leader of that body, and he was a very able leader, indeed. Associated with him were two other men, named Maguire and Tarpey. I understand that Mr. Maguire got a pension subsequent to the passing of the original Act. We are now informed that Mr. McElligott has been recently granted a pension, and I hope the Minister, having absolved Mr. McElligott from whatever crimes he was supposed to be guilty of, will also deal favourably with Mr. Tarpey. I hope that the Minister, in the generous frame of mind he now appears to be in, will call for the papers in Mr. Tarpey's case and see whether the man was or was not guilty of any particular crime other than the one that Mr. McElligott was supposed to be guilty of.

With regard to this Bill, it is only fair to expect the Minister will agree that whatever payments are to be made will be payable from the date of the passing of the original Act. I hope that the later portion of Section 2 will be amended so as to make that possible. The Minister said that the passing of this Bill will mean an additional sum of £2,000 per annum. One cannot gather from that how many men are likely to be concerned. I would like the Minister to inform the House of the number of individuals likely to receive pensions as a result of the passing of the Bill and particularly under Section 2, and also the number of those affected by Section 3. I suggest to the Minister for his serious and sympathetic consideration that as regards the payment of pensions to widows whose husbands have been killed since the date of the granting of the pensions —if there is any such case—those pensions should be payable as from the date of the death of the individual concerned. As I read clause 3 of this Bill it is quite possible that the payment to be made under it may only be made as from the date of the passing of this Bill. There are two or three very sad cases. One in Carlow and another in Roscrea have come under my notice and I think it would be a generous gesture on the part of the Minister, if necessary to make clear where it is not clear, that such payments under Section 3 of the Bill will be made as from the date of the death of the individual concerned. It will not involve any great additional amount and the concession will certainly be very favourably accepted by those who may be concerned. Personally I found it very difficult in some cases that have come under my notice to understand why the Department or the Minister who is really responsible has seen fit to turn down certain claims which were put up under the original Act.

I will cite one case I am aware of. The name of the individual I am dealing with is Bergin. He had short service and was dismissed subsequent to the conscription period of 1918. The case came before the Minister subsequent to the passing of the original Act, and for reasons of which I am not now aware the claim was turned down. Subsequently representations were made on behalf of this particular individual, and assurances were given that if evidence were produced to prove conclusively or clearly that the individual concerned was dismissed for a particular reason the case would be reconsidered. This individual, Bergin, was serving in a place called Ballinamuck, in the County Longford. He was asked by the sergeant in charge at the time to identify and arrest certain people who were actively associated with the Irish Republican Army in that area. He definitely refused to carry out that duty and was dismissed. There is evidence in the records in the Minister's Department that that is the reason why he was dismissed. The local leader of the Irish Republican Army and the clergymen who were in that area certified that that was the real reason why Bergin was dismissed. Subsequent to his dismissal from the R.I.C. he received a position as a traffic porter, and he was paid one pound five per week less than he was receiving at the date of his dismissal from the Royal Irish Constabulary. He continued to serve in the railway service, and at the same time he became a member of the Irish Republican Army. Subsequent to the signing of the Treaty he joined the National Army. He served on the Curragh in the Military Police. He was promoted sergeant, and later he was demobilised with a very good character. I quote this to show why he was dismissed. These were incidents to prove quite clearly to me, at any rate, that he was dismissed for political activities, and his subsequent activities show that they were consistent with the action he took previously.

I would like the Minister to look up the records and say why, in the case of an individual of that kind who has had only a short service and whose pension, therefore, would only be a small one, his claim was turned down. It is a clear case, in my opinion. The activities of the individual concerned quite clearly prove that he was dismissed for national reasons, and his record was a national one subsequent to his dismissal. The individual concerned will not starve if he does not get a pension. All I ask is that in a case of that kind some reason should be given other than the blunt refusal which was conveyed to the individual in a letter from the Minister's Department on the 31st October last.

I am not quite certain as to how many individuals are at present in receipt of a pension under the Act but I support the suggestion made by Deputy Ruttledge that an advisory committee—I do not say it should be a committee which should have power over the Minister in matters of this kind because I recognise at any rate that that is impossible—should be set up to investigate the claims of certain individuals or to get, in private from the Minister, the reasons why individuals of the kind I referred to have been refused pensions. I know that the Minister can produce evidence from certain files in his Department to prove that individuals who claimed pensions are not entitled to them or that the reasons they gave are not justified. I have seen one case where an individual got a pension under false pretences and I agree with the Minister that he can produce good evidence to show why that pension should be cancelled. At any rate the Minister should take members of the House into his confidence, produce files and show evidence where certain individuals have genuine grievances.

The individuals concerned were given very definite promises. These were given by the late General Collins and repeated in this House subsequent to the passing of the Constitution by the late Minister for Justice in very clear language which cannot be misunderstood. We have heard a lot recently, a great deal of agitation has been going on and there has been a good deal of noise in the Press, in support of the fair treatment that was meted out to those civil servants who refused to serve an Irish Government subsequent to the passing of the Treaty. If the conditions we have recently heard of can be given to a certain type of civil servant who refused to serve an Irish Government certainly the promises made by General Collins and subsequently repeated in this House to the men who have grievances should be kept. These men made it possible for the Ministry to occupy the positions they occupy to-day. A considerable section of those men were married men who came out and made sacrifices. Where it can be proved that they made sacrifices those men should be fairly and honourably dealt with. If the Government can pay pensions and expenses to people who say that they are Irishmen but who are either ashamed, afraid or unwilling to serve an Irish Government, if they have meted out a generous measure of treatment to them recently, certainly there is a better case for more generous treatment to those men covered under this Bill and certainly there is a better case for every consideration of some of the cases recently turned down under the original Act of the Minister.

What made me rise in connection with this debate was that Deputy Davin mentioned a particular case and I thought it was one that I had had some connection with, but I found it was not. It was almost a similar case in certain of the details. To my mind it was most unsympathetic the way the Minister dealt with the claims of some of these men. There was one particular case that came under my notice where a man had been asked to resign subsequent to the conscription business in 1918. After his resignation he worked, and worked well, for the Volunteer movement in carrying arms from different countries to Ireland. When that man's claim went forward it was turned down by the Committee. It would not be politic for me to give the man's name to the members here, because he happens to reside in the Six County area. One would think that his case had received unsympathetic consideration on the ground that his resignation had taken place in 1918. But that cannot be so, because this very day I have sent in another case to the Minister of a man who resigned six months before the Truce. Both these men have got documents from local clergymen and leaders of the Volunteers to prove that they had been asked to resign, and had resigned on patriotic grounds, and not, as might be suggested, from fear or anything else. They actually had documentary evidence to prove that they had made themselves useful to the Volunteers, and still those claims were turned down. There might be a certain amount of excuse for the latter case because the man's claim arrived too late for the Committee. At the same time, it is very hard, especially in the Six County area, where sometimes it is not easy for these men to get a living, to see other men who served England consistently until the Treaty with good pensions, whilst these, the poor fools, sometimes have hardly enough to eat.

There is also the case referred to by Deputy Ruttledge. That is the case of the Connaught Rangers. There is hardly any need to reiterate what has been already spoken of in this House with regard to their case. I do not believe that there can be any more than four or five of those who might be considered entitled to pensions. I do not know the exact number, but some of those men served for 15 or 17 years in the Army, and it is not easy for a man who has served in the ranks of the British Army for 15 or 17 years to come out and make a living in another occupation, especially since there seems to be a prejudice against them in the country. I say that calmly and without any heat, because, to my own knowing and the knowing of my colleagues, there seems to have existed a prejudice against those men which was absolutely unfair, because those men had been made a definite promise. They had been given a promise the same as resigned R.I.C. men, and that promise should have been kept, but was not kept. Their case, to my mind, should receive a very sympathetic consideration.

In connection with this Bill, I wish merely to support the plea made by my colleague, Deputy Ruttledge, for the mutineers of the Connaught Rangers. There are not a dozen men in question. They may not come directly under this Bill, but I would suggest to the Minister for Finance the advisability of putting in a clause, if necessary, in order to include them. I suppose not even Deputy Cooper would question their courage in taking the action they did in India, whatever he might think of their wisdom or their loyalty. They, by that action, sacrificed the pensions that they would now have been enjoying from the British Government. I know two of them personally, and they say they would be satisfied to get, even now, a pension on the same lines as they would have enjoyed from the British Government, to let the years during which they have found it very hard to get a living of any sort go and not to have the pension retrospective. I think that is a very fair demand, and that nobody in this House, with the possible exception of Deputy Cooper, would object to such a pension being granted.

I do not want to weary the House with details of ex-R.I.C. or ex-D.M.P. men who resigned from patriotic motives. Definite cases have been mentioned by Deputy Carney, Deputy Davin and Deputy Ruttledge. I merely refer to the case of Mr. Moran, of Gort, an ex-D.M.P. man. I will leave the Minister to judge from the evidence he has got on the files as to whether or not he should come under this Bill. True, he was accused of being connected with certain Republican associations, but at the time he resigned there was no condition as to the future political belief of such men, except that they should come out to aid the country in its time of need, to attain its freedom. Mr. Moran, I understand, has now made arrangements to go to America, as he cannot get a living here. If a committee were set up to investigate in these calmer days the claims of such men I am quite certain Mr. Moran's name would be included in the list of those to be granted an allowance or pension under this Bill.

I, too, join in the plea for the Connaught Rangers. There is one of those men in the town of Fermoy. About three or four years ago he came to me and said he was badly off. I pleaded for him at that time, and he was taken into the National Army. He remained there until about twelve months ago, when he was demobilised. He is quite a young man, and being a shoemaker he is well able to do work for the Army. Anyhow, he was reduced to such low circumstances that I had to plead for him in the Board of Health, and he is now receiving 10/- a week outdoor relief for his wife and three or four children. For that reason I would support the plea for the Connaught Rangers. In their own time and place they did their bit. I might call them wounded soldiers in the fight, and we should not forget them. When I mentioned this man's case to the Board of Health they told me to name the amount I wanted. The ten members who were there, farmers and rate-payers, recognising the sacrifice that he had made for the country, immediately fell into the chorus that he should not be forgotten. For that reason I ask our own Government that they, too, should recognise the sacrifice that those men made far away in India, remembering they were Irishmen.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the case of the former temporary Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Survey who were dismissed the service after 1914. I notice that the Minister is smiling.

I was just wondering how the Deputy was going to connect them with this Bill.

I was going to ask whether the Minister would not consider the circumstances of these men and say whether it would not be possible, by amending the Bill in Committee, to reopen their cases. I am sure he is fairly familiar with the circumstances, which I would like, with the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to state briefly to the House. A number of the men in question, at any rate, had considerable periods of service as temporary Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Survey. I think in the year 1915 they were given the option of joining up or of being dismissed. If they joined up some of them were told that they would never have to go to the front and that after demobilisation they would be reemployed as established officers. They refused, however, to join up, and, of course, were dismissed. I understand that their case was brought before the Government and, in the year 1925, they were reinstated, but with this disability: In a circular issued in 1927 those of them who had served fifteen years as unestablished officers and who received a certificate from the Director of their particular branch were told they would become established officers, with the proviso that half of their period as unestablished officers would count towards superannuation. That is to say, that their fifteen years as unestablished officers would be counted as seven-and-half years as established officers.

Surely this is a matter which cannot be connected with this Bill. You would want to change the Bill almost completely to bring it under it.

If you are of opinion that is so, I am going to accept that. I did not want to rule myself out of court before I got so far. If the Minister will see what he can do in the matter, I will be satisfied. I was asked to draw his attention to it at this stage of the Bill, and I have done that. In connection with the Connaught Rangers, I do not know whether the Minister will need any further exhortation from all sides of the House to give the cases of these men favourable consideration. I do not know whether he is aware of some of the instances of individual hardship which have ensued in consequence of the mutiny. I have here a considerable file of letters, and there are one or two cases I should like to bring before him. There is the case of P. Smith, late of 7 Windmill Lane, Drogheda, who was shot dead during the mutiny in India. He had nine years' service in the British Army, and he leaves a father who is seventy years of age, and a sister. I believe that the old man, who was deprived of his son in these circumstances, is now living in a state of destitution. I think that the consideration of this case, at any rate, should compel the Minister to see if he cannot do something to relieve the distress in that particular case and other cases like it. There is the case of J. Hewson, of 7 Malpas Place, Dublin, who was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude and was in prison for two and a half years. This man had ten and a half years' service in the British Army, and is now unemployed. He has a wife and two children, and from the date of his discharge from prison he has only received seven weeks' employment on public works. There is another case of a similar kind—they are nearly all similar, as a matter of fact, and I have a long list here—the case of T. Fallon, 42 Francis Street, Drogheda, who was sentenced to two years' hard labour and was imprisoned for eighteen months. He had twelve years' service in the British Army, is now unemployed and has to support a widowed mother who is in very bad health.

I could go through the list, but I do not think it is necessary. Most of us have, at one time or another, come across some of these men. I know that at the time this incident occurred, when the first rumours of it got abroad in Ireland, we felt that the men who had taken that action under the circumstances were men in whom all honest Irishmen might take a peculiar pride, because they knew they were men who, for one reason or another, in some cases possibly through economic circumstances, had been driven into a certain path, who had served honourably under a flag, possibly from merely mercenary reasons, and who had, under conditions of extreme danger to themselves, done everything they could to show that they were true and patriotic Irishmen, for whom every Deputy who has a spark of Irish nationality or sentiment in his heart will endeavour to raise his voice in order to secure justice.

As one who is not very familiar with the people who would be affected by this Bill, I should like to sound a note of warning in connection with the suggestion to set up a committee to deal with applications. So far as I can see, the time is fast approaching when there will be practically nobody in this country but pensioners. I think it would be very unwise to set up such a committee, because it would mean that the Minister would be inundated with applications not only from men who might have genuine claims, but also from men who would not have genuine claims. The Minister mentioned the cases of fourteen or fifteen men who resigned from the R.I.C. on the ground of ill-health. They were apparently able to secure a medical certificate testifying that their health was of such a nature that they were not in a position to carry on their duties. It strikes me that some of these men resigned rather through fear than from patriotic motives. I quite recognise that there are thousands of young men in the country who sacrificed their health, and who at present have no chance of receiving any remuneration for their services. If we have to recoup everybody who is supposed to have rendered service during that very troubled period, we will become a bankrupt country in the course of a few years—we will have no such thing as people producing anything, and it will not be good for the industries of the country. I am sorry to have to refer to the fact that as a result of the work accomplished by these men, in pursuance of the policy to secure freedom for this country, we have to-day a divided country, and we are not in as good a position to-day to pay these pensions as we would be if freedom had been secured for the nation as a whole.

I am more or less under a disability in entering on this discussion, but I do not believe in any man who is imbued with the idea that he should be compensated for fighting for or defending his country, as I am personally acquainted with many who were prepared to go out and suffer for their country in order that freedom might be secured without any hope of compensation being given to them, by way of pension or otherwise. I think that the time has arrived when it is absolutely essential in the interests of the people living in the country, that an end should be put to the granting of pensions, except in cases where absolute proof is adduced that would entitle people to pensions. To set up such a committee as has been suggested would be very unwise. The time of the House would be occupied in discussing applications from people who were supposed to have served the country during these years. In introducing this Bill, the Minister has gone very far to meet any legitimate claims that may be put forward on behalf of those men who resigned from the R.I.C.

I think that but for Deputy Coburn's speech we have had a debate very like that which takes place in connection with bog roads. I do not propose to deal with individual cases mentioned, except perhaps one case referred to by Deputy Ruttledge. The case of Mr. McElligott was a difficult case because of his own letter of resignation from the R.I.C. That letter was dead against him. Nobody reading that letter—I do not know whether the Deputy has read it or not, but it was published in the "Police and Prison Officers' Journal"—if he had only the letter before him could come to any other conclusion than that Mr. McElligott should not get a pension. He submitted practically no evidence to the Department of Finance and, so far as I am concerned, I only obtained evidence that would counteract the effect which that letter had on my mind after I had been visited by Senator Johnson. He was not able to give me very much direct evidence himself, but he gave me information about people who could give direct evidence.

Mr. McElligott apparently did not attach any importance to that letter of his own, and did not take the trouble to make his case, as other applicants made their cases. The result was that we had, practically, a bald application from Mr. McElligott, on one side, and that letter of resignation on the other, which certainly was dead against him. I know that letter of resignation could be explained away, just as excuses given by people that they resigned for ill-health or for family reasons could be explained away.

Did the Minister read the letter written by the late General Collins to Mr. McElligott?

No; I do not think so.

It was circularised to the Minister among other people.

Is it not a fact that documents that would prove that his resignation was because of national sympathy were taken from him when he was arrested?

No. I do not think so. Certainly, if such documents existed they never came to the section of the Department of Finance that dealt with the resigned and dismissed R.I.C. pensioners. As I say, the first time we got information that would really serve to counteract the effect of his own letter of resignation was when Senator Johnson wrote to me, and afterwards came to the Department of Finance, at my request, to speak to me about it, and when he told us the names of people who, he believed from evidence he obtained in connection with the Trade Union Congress, would be able to give clear evidence of national sympathy as apart from, shall we call it, Trade Union zeal on the part of Mr. McElligott. We wrote to these people asking them to come to the Department of Finance and give their evidence, and, as soon as we obtained that evidence, which was perfectly clear, a certificate was made out in his favour.

May I ask whether the Minister had that evidence before him on 16th November, 1927?

Why did the Minister state then that the reason he was refused a pension was because up to that they had information that he was associated with Republican activities in the civil war, but in view of the changed circumstances he would consider the case.

Exactly. It had not been really considered before that. None of these cases really had been gone into. The people engaged on the Irregular side during the civil war had not their cases considered at all. Personally, I did not look at these cases. In reply to a question put, I think, by Deputy de Valera, I said I would consider them. It was after that that Mr. McElligott's file was considered.

Deputy Davin and Deputy Ruttledge both suggested certain amendments in regard to the provision for pensions for widows. It seems to me, at first glance, that these suggestions are reasonable, and I am prepared to consider them. One of the suggestions is that pensions should be payable from the death of the husband, and the other that the pension should be payable to a widow whose husband would have got the pension but for his death before the issue of the certificate.

I do not think that anything could be more useless than to set up the Committee suggested. I do not think a more unsuitable Committee could possibly be devised to deal with the matter than a Committee of members of this House. As a matter of fact, of the cases which the original Committee passed, a considerable number have been refused pensions because subsequent information was obtained. For instance, people represented that they were dismissed because of some act that indicated national sympathies; but afterwards we got clear evidence that they were dismissed, either for drunkenness, or we got clear information—that is, in regard to many of those people the Committee passed—that they had not resigned because of national sympathies. Several hundreds of cases passed by the Committee—I cannot give the exact number—were turned down by me, and, in a few cases, by the late Minister for Justice where he actually examined the facts. In nearly all cases, I examined the files myself, and although large numbers were turned down by me I am satisfied that amongst the 528 who have pensions an appreciable number should not have got them. I was not in a position, on the evidence that came up, to refuse them; still, I am satisfied that amongst these there are a considerable number who were not influenced by national motives at all but were simply taking the safe course.

On the other hand, I do not think that of the people definitely refused there were, really, any who should have been granted pensions. People were refused, but if there seemed to be injustice done the case was gone into again and again. All sorts of people made representations; applicants themselves have made representations, and further inquiries have been carried out. Perhaps there are about half a dozen cases, or a little more, undecided. Three or four more cases may have come in recently. There may be twenty cases altogether that are awaiting decision. Leaving these out, I think everybody who is really entitled to a pension has got it. They have not been unsympathetically considered, but we have to bear in mind that people who left the police at the time, for any sort of reason, when they saw the pensions were going came along and claimed pensions. I do not think that they have been unsympathetically dealt with. It is difficult to decide on people's motives. There may be a few who resigned for national sympathy, but who neither showed any friendship with the Volunteers nor did anything nationally afterwards. There may be people whose cases, because we looked at their conduct and could not look at their minds, we have turned down, but I think very few resigned because of national sympathies without giving some assistance, or showing some sign of friendship either before, or after, that would enable us to judge of their intentions.

Just one other remark about the Committee. I told Deputies some months ago that I would not refuse to consider a claim coming in even then. I would not absolutely refuse to consider a claim coming in even now, but I would be very suspicious of such a claim, because it is much more difficult to get clear evidence now. People's memories are more vague, and I think they could be very easily persuaded to say that they knew so and so did such a thing in 1918 or 1919. The farther away we get from the period of resignation the more doubtful the evidence becomes. Consequently, unless the case was very strong, I would be much more inclined to turn it down now—that is, a new case coming in in regard to which we had not evidence previously—than I would have been three or four years ago. I would, on the whole, be really suspicious of cases coming in now.

Seeing that the Minister has more or less turned down the demand of Deputy Ruttledge for a committee, would he be prepared to give in confidence the reasons why certain cases were turned down?

I would possibly do it in certain cases. I think the Deputy has, in fact, been given the evidence in confidence in one or two cases. While I would not give a general undertaking, I might, in certain cases which I think suitable, give the information to the Deputy. Supposing there were some information that was against an individual given in the course of an inquiry, I do not think that we should disclose it. Personally, I have had these cases considered by civil servants who, I think, take a very impartial attitude, and I have not often disagreed with the recommendations put up to me by them. I have, perhaps, in three or four cases refused recommendations which were, on the whole, favourable. I have never granted any claims unless the recommendations came from the civil servants who were dealing with the matter. With regard to the Connaught Rangers, I rather forget what was the general effect of the report made on those cases by the Committee set up to consider them some years ago. I remember it was unfavourable, and I think the view was that, in the case of their mutiny, patriotism was an afterthought and that they had no claim. I am prepared to look into the matter again. The Committee was set up, inquired into the cases, and reported that they had no claim. The reason given, I think, was that the mutiny was due to their treatment in India, and that their claim that it was due to patriotism was really an afterthought. I will look that up and communicate it to the Dáil at a later stage. I would not be prepared to consent to anything in the case of the Connaught Rangers without a good deal of further investigation. If, on looking at that report, I saw any reasons to doubt that it was correct I would think it was a case for another committee, but I do not think that their case is in any way like that of the resigned and dismissed R.I.C. As Deputy Coburn pointed out, the fact that the Connaught Rangers are in distress has nothing to do with the matter. We gave to the ex-R.I.C. certain pledges irrespective of whether they were in distress or not. The question of distress amongst the Connaught Rangers does not come in. If they have a claim it should be met irrespective of personal circumstances. If they have no claim their distress is not any worse than that of many individuals who made sacrifices in this country when they were necessary. The mere fact that these men were in the British service does not mean that there is any direct obligation on us towards them. It does not mean that they should get better treatment than those who were never in the British service, and who made sacrifices, and who are now in poverty and distress as a result of them.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 14th March.
Top
Share