Just before the Minister moved the adjournment last night the House will recollect that he made a statement that he had destroyed sixteen trains by burning them with whiskey on my orders, and I asked for some particulars about them.
Army Pensions Bill, 1932—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on Section 5, amendments 9 and 10.
It is the loss of the whiskey that is worrying the Deputy?
Does the Deputy deny that I burned trains on his orders?
I am asking for particulars about them.
On a point of order, would it be out of order now to appeal to these gentlemen not to scandalise this country any further in the eyes of the world. Let us not go back to these things and——
Is this a point of order?
I want to make this quite clear that on the first day I introduced this Bill I made an appeal that the passage of this Bill should wipe out all the bitterness of the past and that the past should not be discussed further. I sat perfectly silent while Deputy Mulcahy threw a lot of mud about the situation in 1922. I said nothing; I let it go. Yesterday, when the Money Resolution came in, although Deputy Mulcahy threw further mud and told further untruths, all I did was to appeal to him, for the sake of the country, not to go into these things, and I gave him an opportunity to withdraw his amendments and an opportunity to do so honourably before the country. I asked him on a plea of generosity and not hinting that I had anything to say that was discreditable to him, and I gave him an opportunity to justify himself before the country by saying he was withdrawing in order to cover over the bitternesses of the past. I ask Deputy Dillon what more could I be expected to do?
I do not press the Minister. All I can say is this: The statements that were bandied between Deputy Mulcahy and the Minister distressed anybody who has a regard for the high name of this country. Terrible things did happen in this country during the last fifteen years and I believe that every decent Irish Nationalist wants to forget them and to work for the future and not with his eyes on the past. Surely Deputy Mulcahy and the Minister, whom I respectfully suggest are jointly responsible, should respond to the appeal and drop all this and argue the Bill on its merits?
I ask Deputy Dillon what does he expect me to to? I have told him what I have done and I ask what more can I do? I have appealed to Deputy Mulcahy to drop this. I was hit on one cheek last week and I turned the other yesterday. How much further am I to go?
Is it necessary for the Minister to recite the deplorable incidents, the scandalous incidents, that took place years ago, which he digs out of official files——
State documents.
——to inquire now why they were not dealt with in a disciplinary way? Is that relevant to this debate? I can fully sympathise with the Minister's feelings, as, indeed, I can sympathise with Deputy Mulcahy, too, but, surely, there is no necessity for digging up all that business, and if one Party digs it up, it is much better for the other Party simply to ignore it. Anybody who digs up these things now does himself harm and nobody else.
I agree altogether with the Deputy. It would be better if these things were dropped and if the past were buried and I appealed to the Deputy to look to the future and not to rake up these things or compel me to do it. I put this to the Deputy— I do not care what they say about me personally, not a rap of my fingers, as I said yesterday—but the Deputies opposite slandered comrades who fell by my side. Am I to allow that to go down uncontroverted in the official records here without making some effort to show that the slanders were uttered by a man whose word was utterly unreliable, and who could not be trusted even by his own Cabinet?
I submit, sir, that this is a sample of what has caused a lot of the talk and a lot of the unnecessary discussion on this measure. Deputy Dillon seems to think that unnecessary matters have been introduced in this House by myself and my amendments in dealing with this matter——
And by the Minister.
I put to the House on the Second Reading nothing but a simple, documentary statement of the authority that was behind the actions of the time in respect of which it is proposed now to give pensions to persons who received wounds. I submit to Deputies who will take the trouble of going back over that statement that it is nothing but a pure, documentary statement that certainly should be associated with a Bill of this importance, if this House is going to treat the work it is carrying out with anything like a responsible mind at all, bearing in mind the future which Deputy Dillon asks us to bear in mind here. We have been asked to look to the future by the Minister, and we have been asked to deal with the Bill on its merits by the Deputy. So far as I am concerned, I am simply dealing with the merits of the case and dealing with the merits in an impersonal and documentary way. I, too, am asking the House to look to the future, and, if the House, instead of breaking aside into some of the discursive discussions it has broken into, would take the clauses and the amendments, and say "yes" or "no" to these, we would know where we stood. If we are to have all kinds of semi-sentimental appeals to us not to open our eyes to this and not to open our eyes to that, the discussions here are not going to be edifying and the work we are doing here is not going to be satisfactory work.
On a point of personal explanation, if Deputy Mulcahy suggests that I am making a sentimental appeal not to dig up the deeds that were done by both sides in this country during the past fifteen years, I can assure him that I am not. I am appealing to him to spare the fair name of this country and not to give it out to the world that the actions of irresponsible and criminal men were typical of the leaders of either side in a deplorable conflict.
We must be prepared to give out to the world, in dealing with a Bill like this, that we know why the Bill is before us, and there are systematically arranged amendments there to look at and to read and to discuss. I do not want to question the way in which these amendments had to be dealt with yesterday as a matter of order, but I think these amendments are very simple. Very little requires to be said about them but I do submit that the House, in coming to a decision on them, ought to put itself in a responsible frame of mind. On Amendment No. 9, I just intervened on a matter that arose last night. If the Minister does not wish to answer, I do not want to press my question.
I shall now put the amendment.
The Deputy can ask the question.
I will ask the question. The Deputy said last night——
The Minister.
——that he had destroyed sixteen trains by burning them with whiskey on my instructions? I would like the Deputy to refresh my memory as to the date.
To whom is the Deputy addressing his question?
I am addressing the question to the Minister who made the statement.
That is all right then. I want to ask the Deputy a question.
Answer my question.
I want to ask the Deputy a question. Did he ever instruct the Volunteers of this country to burn trains?
Answer my question.
The Minister is entitled to make his own speech.
The Deputy is not taking command now.
You are not the Minister yet, anyway. Leave it to the Minister and the Deputy.
The Deputy will not deny that he instructed people to burn trains in this country?
Would the Minister answer the question he is asked——
The Deputy will not deny it.
——and follow up the statement made last night.
It is not worth it. The Deputy does not deny it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Hara, Patrick.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared lost.
Amendment 10 not moved.
I move Amendment 11:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, lines 2-4, to delete the words "the expression ‘pre-truce military service' means military service during any part of the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1916, and ending on the 11th day of July, 1921."
I move this in order to get some information in view of the inadequacy of the information the Minister gave us as to who were to be entitled to pensions under this Bill and to the suggestion that some 1916 men and some men in respect of service in 1920 and 1921 would get pensions under it. My impression is that the men of these particular periods were dealt with completely in other Acts, and in filling in blanks in the explanation of the Minister I read the following extracts from the Government Press:
Many refused to avail themselves of similar Acts of the late Government on the grounds that it was not being faithful to the ideal for which the lives had been given and the wounds proudly borne. All those can feel to-day that it is a people's tribute and not a tribute of any party or section that they are being asked to accept for the noble service with which their names will always be associated.
I would like the Minister to give some explanation of the suggestion that is implied in the paragraph.
The paragraph is quite clear. The words which the Deputy proposes to delete are quite clear. Service is defined, and those who have been on service are entitled to pensions.
Will the Minister give us any information as to the type of persons that exist who were entitled to wound pensions under the previous Acts and who have not availed of them, because to avail of them would be sacrificing an ideal?
I know several.
In what way are circumstances changed now?
Amendment 11, sub-section (2), page 3. Is the Deputy pressing?
If that is all the information we can get, I have no desire to press the matter.
Before the Question is put, I want to say on this matter what circumstances prevented my saying yesterday evening. The Labour Party approaches this Bill as an attempt to provide compensation or pensions in certain cases in respect of wounds and disabilities which arose out of a very abnormal period, out of a period which I think few people want to recall, out of a period which I think most people would be glad to rub a sponge over. We regard this measure as an attempt to provide some compensation and pension for those people the merits of whose relative positions we need not go into now, and we hope that the passage of this Bill will do something to rub the sponge, as I said, over that unhappy period. The Labour Party's attitude to these amendments and all the other amendments is that it hopes this Bill will be passed and that all these amendments of Deputy Mulcahy will be defeated so that some compensation can be provided for those who were wounded or disabled in that unhappy period. They hope that having made that provision for those who were wounded or disabled in that period, that the curtain may be drawn down over an unhappy period and, that the Ireland of the future will look to the future for hope and guidance instead of resurrecting the bitter recriminations and hatreds of the past.
I appreciate a lot of what Deputy Norton says, but I think it really would have been more helpful to the House if we had heard him on the specific amendments. He refers to the hope that all the amendments standing in my name will be defeated. I think it would help the House if he would wait and deal with, say, the next amendment, or deal with those amendments which seek to secure that persons who took part in the revolt will not be paid higher pensions than the soldiers who saved our State and institutions.
I will put it—"destructive amendments."
Good enough.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move:
12. Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"Every application for the grant under this part of this Act of a pension or gratuity to or an allowance or gratuity in respect of a person alleged to have been a member of an organisation to which this part of the Act applies shall be accompanied by a Declaration in the form to be prescribed by the Minister and certified in such manner as the Minister shall prescribe that the applicant is not a member of an organisation which according to the law in force in Saorstát Eireann is unlawful, and the Minister shall not refer to the Registration Board any application not accompanied by such declaration."
I submit that if we are to have regard for the future as we have been asked, that it is essential that an amendment such as that would go in. The Deputies generally are aware that there is an organisation claiming to be the same organisation, organised in the same way and claiming to have the arms that the organisation had that we are dealing with in this particular Bill, standing outside and defying in the matter of the possession of arms and in the matter of its organisation, the Oireachtas here. It has gone even further than that and in the issue of its organ for the 15th October in a report of a speech by Mr. George Gilmore at Ballymahon on the previous Sunday we find the following quotation: "But the I.R.A. was an organisation that could be used as a revolutionary Army if the people who suffer under the present system of robbery and exploitation got into it and made it so and kept it so." Again: "He warned them that the I.R.A., which was not an armed expression of the revolt of the oppressed classes, would be an actual danger, because it would keep the energetic, well-intentioned people busy learning to form fours while the Capitalist exploiters were taking up their new alignments and adjusting themselves to changed political conditions." That is a statement by one of the principal persons in the organisation in a paper issued on the 15th October. It is well known that the organisation boasts that it still has arms and that it still is the type of organisation that existed previously. It has emphasised from time to time that its object is "the abolition of the infamous Constitution," using for that purpose the only weapons which Pearse is misrepresented as saying were of any use in achieving freedom, that is arms. It has made repeated and reiterated statements to the effect that "capitalism has failed, that they must organise and rally round the hardpressed peasantry and the unemployed and starving workers." It has turned its attention to the problem of partition in this country, and says they must solve it by peaceful means if possible, but if not by military methods, and in an address sent from the Army Council to the men and women of the Orange Order in July last we had the question that: "The I.R.A. within North-East Ulster as well as in the rest of Ireland believe that the mass of the working farmers and wage earners must organise behind revolutionary leadership if they are to rescue themselves from a system within which the few prosper and the many are impoverished."
Individuals in this organisation who have been brought before the courts for the illegal possession of arms have taken up the attitude that they are soldiers of the Republic, that arms taken from them by the police are robbed from the Republic, and one of them brought before such a court said in July last:—
I am a soldier of the Republic and I cannot recognise the right of the court to try me on a charge of having those arms. They are the property of the Republican Army and have been stolen.
All through the country everything that is possible has been done to stir up every element of disorder, to put the mantle of the Irish Republican Army of old and of Pearse around men who take arms into their hands and to invite them as the only possible way of solving the problems of the people, of solving problems dealing with the organisation of capital and of industry, to produce the rifle, the revolver and the bomb. While that is so I submit that any person wishing to make use of the provisions of this particular Bill ought, in asking the people of the country to pension him in respect of previous happenings, to give an undertaking to the people that he is not a member of one of the illegal organisations that are operating in the way I have stated just now.
First of all this Bill relates only to pensions for wounds or disability arising out of services up to 1923. That answers that part of the speech of the Deputy. Furthermore, I wish again to point out that the Deputy had an opportunity on this Bill, seeing that it was an extension of the Acts of 1923 and 1927, to put forward an amendment asking the Dáil not to give pensions to certain persons, but strangely he did not avail himself of that opportunity to extend the prohibition which he wished to put in the way of the men whom we wish to pension here, and to put the same prohibition in the way of other people whom he and his Party pensioned in the past. Not alone was this amendment which the Deputy wished to have included in this Bill not included in former Bills, but sections were inserted in the Act which are diametrically opposed to the spirit of the amendment itself if we take it at its face value. In the Military Service Pensions Act of 1924, Section 2, we find the following:—
Any person to whom this Act applies may within the prescribed period apply in the prescribed form to the Minister, and the Minister may grant to him, subject to the provisions of this Act, a certificate of military service.
It goes on to say in sub-section (3):—
The Minister may in his absolute discretion refuse to issue a certificate of military service to any applicant who shall have, prior to the making of the reports by the Board of Assessors, been sentenced by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term exceeding three months or any term of penal servitude.
That Act did not, as the House will see, propose to debar people who had suffered terms of three months' imprisonment or any term of penal servitude, altogether from the receipt of pensions. It left it in the discretion of the Minister whether people who were convicted criminals should get pensions or not and of course there was no such thing as debarring them completely. That refers to convicted criminals. Much further was it from the Deputy's mind to debar people who were not convicted criminals but whom he knew to be criminals. The next point that arises on this is, will the Deputy give the House a guarantee that he is not a member of an illegal organisation?
I will surely.
If the Deputy does will he tell us exactly how much reliance is to be placed on his word in that respect?
The Minister must accept the Deputy's word.
Yes, surely, but I wonder how much reliance can the House place on it in accepting it. Is the House to put as much reliance on it as the ex-Minister's colleagues in the Cabinet put on it? The late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, in his report to the Investigation Committee, the Army Committee of Inquiry set up by this Dáil, showed that he had not much reliance on his ex-colleague, Deputy Mulcahy, in the Cabinet. Reporting to this Commission of Inquiry set up by the Dáil, about the existence of groups, combinations or societies in the Army he said:—
Early in 1923 I heard reliably that officers, specially selected, were summoned from various parts of the country and sat in Portobello under the chairmanship of Seán O'M., then assistant Adjutant-General, to consider the resurrection or the reorganisation of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. I made the assertion at the meeting of the Executive Council shortly after that, and it was denied by the Minister for Defence (Deputy Mulcahy), who also denied an assertion by me that the Headquarters staff of the Army were practically the "inner" or "upper" circle of a secret society.
On a point of order, we have now the Minister reading from a Departmental file. He refers to a statement which the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins made at a meeting of the Executive Council. I understand that the proceedings of the Executive Council are confidential. It would seem that the contents, therefore, of the file are confidential, and I would ask if it is in order to publish the contents of a confidential file.
On a question of fact, this is a file taken from the report of the Committee set up by the Dáil to inquire into the unsatisfactory position created by Deputy Mulcahy.
Is that true?
It is true.
Would the Minister correct me if I say that it was set up at a meeting of the Executive Council? I do not think the Dáil set it up.
It was a Dáil Committee.
On the question of quotations from documents, the Chair cannot prevent the Minister from making his case in his own way. Quotation is a commonplace in speech-making. As regards quotations from official documents, if a Minister quotes from an official document he may be asked by a Deputy to lay such document on the Table of the House, if it is not already available to Deputies. To such a request the Minister might plead that it would not be in the public interest to publish the document. If the Minister, when so requested, declines to have the papers laid on the Table of the House, he should not quote further from such document, as he might then be accused of making an ex parte statement, using partial quotation to suit his own purpose. That is the position.
Would the Chair give a ruling on the propriety of a Minister's revealing in a public place documents of an official or confidential nature?
The Chair does not rule on the propriety of a speech. If the document is not available and a request is made that the document be laid on the Table of the House, the document is normally so laid. If the Minister refuses to do so for reasons of public interest, no further use can be made of the document in debate.
Cannot a ruling be given on the impropriety of publishing the documents?
I cannot rule on the question of impropriety.
Is the Ceann Comhairle prepared to rule on whether the Minutes of the Executive Council are private or not?
The Chair may inquire whether the document is available to other Deputies or not. As to the whole matter of using in a speech documents relating to the inner history of the Civil War period, I can only repeat what my predecessor said more than once in this House— that the worst possible Tribunal to judge the history of the period from 1922 to 1923 is this House, on all sides of which are Deputies who were active participants in that conflict.
The Deputy is altogether wrong in his assumption that I am quoting from Minutes of the Executive Council.
He quoted what the late Mr. O'Higgins said, while giving evidence at this Departmental Inquiry,—"I brought up this at the Executive Council."
The Deputy must realise that this was a Commission, set up to inquire into these things, which reported to the Dáil——
No, not to the Dáil.
——and that these are simply extracts from that report.
I do not wish to say whether it is a question of one document from a set of papers placed before the Commission of Inquiry, which is to be read out here, or whether the whole evidence of the Commission of Inquiry is to be printed on application or not.
The relevant documents.
Yes. I do want to suggest that if there is, in what the Minister reads out, the implication he wishes to put into it, the document he has in his hand and the whole circumstances into which there was an Inquiry in 1924 are the strongest possible arguments in support of this.
The Deputy can make a speech when I am finished.
I am trying to help the House.
I was pointing out, in reference to the Deputy's denial that he has now a member of an illegal organisation, that his colleagues on the Cabinet could not place much reliance on his word as regards his membership of an illegal organisation.
On a point of order, is the Minister reading from the report of that Committee or from evidence and documents submitted to that Committee?
Evidence.
Then I submit that the Minister has no right to deal with evidence or State documents submitted in that way, and that in doing so he is betraying the common decencies of any civilised country.
The question for the Ceann Comhairle is whether that document is available to other Deputies or not.
No. I was a member of that Committee, and any evidence or documents submitted to it were never revealed by me, and every other member of the Committee regarded it in the same manner.
For a very good reason.
The reason was that my word was pledged.
And the Deputy had divers other reasons to strengthen his word in that respect.
You are only a scoundrel and a liar. He is a scoundrel and a liar—and he looks it!
The Deputy should withdraw the expressions he has just used.
I withdraw and I am sorry, but he is not Irish and everybody knows that.
If that document is not available or to be made available to Deputies the Minister should cease to quote from it.
The document can be made available at any time to the House, if it is asked for.
At any time by the act of the House.
There is one thing about all this whining for mercy at this particular time. I do not mind being called a scoundrel by the Deputy; to tell the truth——
It was yourself I was referring to.
Yes, I know. I do not mind it. I've a sort of respect for the scoundrel who has never shown mercy if, when his own back is to the wall, he will not ask for mercy; but I do object to the scoundrel who never gave quarter who starts whining for it the moment he is cornered himself. That is the sort of scoundrel I detest.
Would the Minister quote the whine?
It seems to me that we have had sufficient.
Mr. O'Higgins said "I made the assertion——"
Evidence again! The Ceann Comhairle said that it is not desirable to release——
I have ruled that it is not desirable, and not permissible to use these documents unless the Minister undertakes to lay them on the Table of the House and make them available to other Deputies, if asked to do so.
Now let us have it.
I again rise to a point of order.
A Deputy
There must be something about Deputy Gorey in that document.
The Minister does not maintain that these documents are such as should not in the public interest be made public.
No. We desire to have them published, and if certain members opposite had had their way even these would never have been made public. They just escaped the flames.
The new statesman— and the President laughing at his yesterday! (Interruptions.)
Deputy Gorey is all right. Leave him alone. Talking about debarring people from getting pensions because they touched State property, some people would be debarred from getting pensions if all the files that were destroyed could be brought in in evidence against them.
Name any files destroyed. The Deputy is a scoundrel and a liar.
This particular document, thanks be to goodness, escaped from the flames. Mr. O'Higgins, as I was trying to say before, said: "I made the assertion at a meeting of the Executive Council shortly after and it was denied by the Minister for Defence (Mulcahy), who also denied an assertion by me that Headquarters Staff of the Army were practically the inner or upper circle of a secret society. I still believe that a series of meetings with that object were, in fact, held in Portobello in the first six months of 1923."
It will be noted there by the House that Deputy Mulcahy denies that he is a member of the I.R.B. Are we to take it that he regards the I.R.B. as an illegal organisation?
When was the I.R.B. made an illegal organisation?
That is what I would like to know.
When it was rent in two to serve a purpose.
A few days afterwards the late Mr. O'Higgins had the experience of having the man who denied all about the I.R.B. asking him to attend a meeting in connection with it. He said:
I think it was the month of June of 1923 when the Minister for Defence (Deputy Mulcahy) asked me would I be willing to meet himself, Seán O'M. and Seán MacM. to hear their views about the I.R.B. organisation, intimating that he intended asking the President and John MacNeill——
On a point of order, might I have a ruling now, when you have heard some of the matter read out by the Minister, whether you think it is relevant to the amendment before the House?
Do you not like it?
I think the Minister has quoted enough for his purpose.
This matter that we are discussing is most important, and I am prepared to show the relevance of it. I indicated the relevance already. The Deputy did not deny that he was a member of an illegal organisation, but now he wants to prohibit people who are members of illegal organisations from getting pensions. Surely this is quite clear.
Am I to understand that the Minister is arguing in favour of persons in illegal organisations getting pensions?
I wish Deputy Mulcahy would have the manliness to stand up and take his medicine. At least he ought to fight it out, anyway, when he is cornered. He should have a little bit of Irish in him. He showed no mercy, but he is whining for it now. I hope, for his own sake and for the sake of the country, that he will not——
I have been asked to rule whether such quotation is in order. It is in order in support of the Minister's argument. As to its desirability, that is a matter for the Minister himself.
I want to reassure you that I am not concerned with anything but the point whether it is in order.
That is good! The late Mr. O'Higgins was invited by Deputy Mulcahy to attend a meeting consisting of Seán O'M. and Seán MacM. to hear their views about the I.R.B. organisation. It was intimated by Deputy Mulcahy, who was then Minister for Defence, that he intended asking the then President, Deputy Cosgrave, and John MacNeill. The document proceeds:—
I replied that I did not wish to leave him under any misapprehensions; that though I was a member of the I.R.B. in pre-Treaty days I had the strongest possible objection to it or to any other secret society in the altered condition of things: that I believed an organisation of that nature would be bad for the Army and for the country. The Minister for Defence stated that while fully appreciating my position he would nevertheless be glad if I were to attend the proposed meeting. About a week later a meeting took place in the President's room. There were present the President, (Deputy Cosgrave), Dr. MacNeill, the Minister for Defence, Seán MacM. in mufti, Seán O'M. in mufti, and myself. Seán O'M. introduced the subject of reorganising the I.R.B. within the Army, assuring us that it would not injure discipline or efficiency, and in particular, would never be allowed to interfere with the proper allegiance of the Army to the present or any future Government. He stated that the Constitution had been adjusted to meet the altered situation. The Minister for Defence (Deputy Mulcahy), who had denied all knowledge a few days previously spoke in a similar strain, stating that the real idea was to keep the I.R.B. from falling into the hands of the Irregulars or other irresponsible people and to enable them the better to control the restive elements within our own ranks.
His colleagues on the Executive Council did not know from day to day whether Deputy Mulcahy was or was not a member of an illegal organisation. The Deputy asked me a very pertinent question. He asked me when was the I.R.B. made an illegal organisation. I said I would like to know, because while he was killing people for being members of illegal organisations he was running this particular pet illegal organisation of his own. Quoting from his own evidence before the Army Committee of Inquiry, I see where he said:
The Committee will understand that the I.R.B. has been, and is a secret society, and there are, therefore, confidences that I must keep.
I wonder was the Deputy keeping a confidence to-day when he denied that he is a member of the I.R.B? He does not say. Even if he did we would not know. In the course of further evidence he said:—
What I had to say publicly with regard to the acceptance of the Treaty I said on the 22nd December, 1921, in the Dáil.
I wonder what he had to say privately. He said further:—
I did not after that suggest or recommend or feel that the I.R.B. should be scrapped. It was not scrapped. Its existence was and is continuous.
That was stated to the Army Inquiry Committee on 12th May, 1924. The Deputy said that the I.R.B. was and is continuous. Is it continuing now? Is the Deputy a member of it? Does he want it cut out from all pensions? If so, why did he not in this extension of the Pensions Act include a clause prohibiting secret societies? It is easy to see what the Deputy's idea is of the uses of the I.R.B. "It was essential," he said, on June 7th, 1923, "that they should control its moulding and development at the present time from the point of view of giving its policy a constructive and unarmed revolutionary turn." It is arranged in a most peculiar way here. We have the letters "un," then a bracket, then the word "armed" and then another bracket. There seems to be a question about the armed part of the business. It is really most peculiar to have a revolutionary organisation unarmed, particularly as the Minister for Finance says, to have a revolutionary body, within an Army, unarmed.
The Deputy's pet organisation was to have a policy which was constructive and of a "revolutionary turn.""It is continuous," he said on May 12th, 1924. When did they discontinue it? If he gives us the date, can we rely on his word? Can we rely on it any more than his colleague could rely on it when the Deputy denied any knowledge of its existence and three or four days afterwards invited the same gentleman to a meeting of the I.R.B.? Again he said at the same inquiry: "In the interests of the State"—Cumann na nGaedheal always had a peculiar idea of the State; they were the State; so we might put it "in the interests of themselves"—"certain Army officers with I.R.B. associations did not refrain from taking part in or giving guidance in matters affecting the organisation. Apprised of their position three other Ministers did see at least some reason for the position and they did not forbid it." One of the Ministers, it is interesting to note, who was apprised of the position and did not forbid it was Deputy Cosgrave.
What sort of organisation was this of which they were apprised, which was continuous on 12th May, 1924, and which they did not forbid within the armed forces of the State? The objects of the I.R.B. are fairly well known. The first is "To establish and maintain a free and independent republican Government in Ireland." The second is: "The I.R.B. shall do its utmost to train and equip its members as a military body for the purpose of securing the independence of Ireland by force of arms. It shall secure the co-operation of all Irish military bodies in the accomplishment of its objects." Again "The Supreme Council of the I.R.B. is hereby declared in fact as well as by right the sole Government of the Irish Republic. Its enactments shall be the laws of the Irish Republic until Ireland secures absolute national independence and a permanent Republican Government be established." In May, 1924, when the Deputy swore that the I.R.B. was in existence there was no permanent Government of the Irish Republic established. He had disestablished it by force of arms and suppressed its courts by force of arms. He had suppressed its Dáil which was to meet on the 13th June, 1922, and never did meet and was substituted by another Dáil summoned three months later.
The suppression of the Dáil and the courts is very far away from this amendment.
I am adverting to the illegality or legality of this organisation which the Deputy maintained within the army, members of which are now drawing pensions from the State. The Deputy in his amendment wants to forbid members of all illegal organisations from drawing pensions —wants to forbid certain people belonging to certain illegal organisations. "The I.R.B. Supreme Council shall have power to levy taxes, raise loans, make war and peace, negotiate and ratify treaties with foreign powers, and all other acts necessary for the protection and government of the Irish Republic." Again "The Supreme Council shall have power to appoint a secret court for the trial of any member or members charged with the commission of treason or grave misdemeanours. The Supreme Council alone shall have power to inflict the sentence of capital punishment and to give it effect." The late Deputy O'Higgins in his evidence stated that he at one time was a member of the I.R.B. Was he tried by a secret court? Who was the president of the court and who carried it out? Does the Deputy want his murderers to be excluded from getting pensions? Does the Deputy want us to think that he did not profit enough by their act to wish to see them fairly well looked after?
There is no real purpose behind this amendment other than to stir up bitterness. The Deputy and his colleagues always wanted the bitterness on one side. They wanted to do all the kicking. They gave no quarter and they whined when cornered. There are plenty of powers within the Bill in the section which forbids the giving of a pension to any man tried and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction set up by the Dáil. That is all that any fair-minded man will ask for. It is impossible to guard against illegal organisations such as that run by Deputy Mulcahy and very early I realised it. When Deputy Mulcahy and a few of the other exMinisters were organising the I.R.B. within the Free State Army I squashed it within the I.R.A. An effort to reorganise the I.R.B. inside the I.R.A. was put down by me and by the Executive of the I.R.A. But an effort to reorganise the I.R.B. was fostered by Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues of the Executive Council. The people after all have a right to know exactly the amount of reliance that can be placed upon the word of some of the men opposite. I was quite prepared to leave the matter to the future, provided I could deal fairly decently with some of the women who were made widows by Deputy Mulcahy; provided I could deal fairly decently with some of the mothers who were left without a son by him; provided I could deal fairly decently with children who were left fatherless by him. That is our intention in the Bill, and again I repeat that I hope the Dáil will pass it.
I have no hope of getting the Minister to see my point of view with regard to the amendment. Deputy Norton, however, spoke in a general way. Would I be in order in asking for the adjournment of the House to give Deputy Norton a chance of attending here and speaking on the subject of this amendment, which is an important one?
I pointed out to the House the type of organisation. The attitude they took up with regard to arms, with regard to the Courts and to the institutions of the State is known. The Minister's obvious intention is that persons, even though they belong to an organisation such as that, may have the benefit of the pensions provided for in this Bill and paid for by the taxpayers. I submit that if it were at all possible in a matter so important as this we might have an adjournment of the Dáil to enable the Leader of the Labour Party to attend. I drew his attention to the fact when he spoke a short time ago on the general amendments, that there was this amendment.
It would not be in order to adjourn the House for the attendance of any Deputy.
The Deputy's obvious intention is a continuation of his practice in the past to have one set of laws for one set of people in this country and another for his particular clique. It is not proposed, although this Bill is wide enough to have enabled the Deputy to do so, to prohibit the particular group of people who are drawing pensions under the 1923 and 1927 Acts or the Military Service Pensions Act of 1924 from being members of illegal organisations. Why? I would like the Deputy to answer.
With regard to the amendments introduced by Deputy Mulcahy, I would like to say that I agree with the statement of the Minister that they had not been introduced in good faith or in a helpful spirit. On a previous Pension Act passed in this House, persons who committed many of the acts that Deputy Mulcahy objects to now, and did many of the things set down in the Deputy's amendment, things which should prohibit them from getting pensions, did succeed in getting pensions. I have in mind one particular individual.
Is this in order on the amendment before the House?
Do not whine.
What I want to say about these amendments is that persons now proposed to be excluded have, under the existing Acts, drawn pensions from the State, even though they committed the acts that the Deputy complained of.
The Deputy, I presume, does not intend to give the names or to discuss the actions of these men. It would be better not to refer to them at all.
I do not want to refer to them at all except that there was a particular individual who was known generally, and known to Deputy Mulcahy. He was acting on the instructions of his superior officer. He was a very active member of the Republican Forces during 1923 and 1924, and on instructions took money from banks during that period. On instructions, too, he destroyed part of a railway and a train engine during that period. On instructions he took clothing from shops. That individual did all that, as a member of what Deputy Mulcahy now holds is an illegal association, and yet that individual was given a pension by Deputy Mulcahy. Why does the Deputy come along now with his attempt to prohibit individuals who acted in a similar capacity from getting pensions? If Deputy Mulcahy questions my facts I can give the name of the individual.
Amendment put. The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 65.
Tá
|
Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Broderick, William Jos.Burke, Patrick.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlon, Martin.Cosgrave, William T.Davis, Michael.Desmond, William.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Doherty, Eugene.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Gorey, Denis John.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Keating, John. |
Keogh, Myles.Kiersey, John.Lynch, Finian.McDonogh, Fred.McGilligan, Patrick.Minch, Sydney B.Mongan, Joseph W.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Nally, Martin.O'Connor, Batt.O'Hara, Patrick.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reidy, James.Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.Roddy, Martin.Vaughan, Daniel.Wolfe, Jasper Travers. |
Níl
|
Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick. Carty, Frank.Cleary, Mícheál.Cooney, Eamonn.Corish, Richard.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Curran, Patrick Joseph.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Everett, James.Flinn, Hugo V.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Geoghegan, James.Gibbons, Seán.Gormley, Francis.Goulding, John.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Humphreys, Francis.Jordan, Stephen.Kelly, James Patrick.Keyes, Raphael Patrick.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn. |
Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Bryan.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Browne, William Frazer. Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Norton, William.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Thomas J.O'Rourke, Daniel.Rice, Edward.Ryan, James.Ryan, Robert.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.). |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
10.—(1) Whenever a person in respect of whom a service certificate has been issued is examined by the Army Pensions Board and is at the date of his examination by that Board suffering from a disablement due to a wound attributable to military service, then—
(a) if the degree of such disablement (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) is at the date of his said examination not less than twenty per cent., such person may be granted a pension at the rate mentioned in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement in the first column of that Schedule, or
(b) if the degree of such disablement (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) is at the date of his said examination less than twenty per cent., such person may be granted a gratuity of such amount, not exceeding seventy-five pounds, as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall with the consent of the Minister for Finance determine.
(2) Whenever a person in respect of whom a service certificate has been issued is examined by the Army Pensions Board and is at the date of his examination by that Board suffering from a disease attributable to military service and the degree of disablement (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) is at the date of his said examination not less than the minimum degree of disablement, such person may be granted a pension at the rate mentioned in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act opposite the appropriate degree of disablement in the first column of that Schedule.
(3) If a person to whom a pension is granted under this section was married before the critical date as defined by the next following sub-section of this section and is at the date of the commencement of such pension a married man for the purposes of this Part of this Act, such person shall, for so long after such commencement as he continues to be a married man for those purposes be entitled to be paid and receive a married pension at the rate mentioned in the third column of the First Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement mentioned in the first column of that Schedule.
(4) For the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section the critical date shall be:—
(a) in the case of a person suffering from disablement due to a wound—the date on which he received such wound; and
(b) in the case of a person who is suffering from disablement due to a disease and was engaged in pre-truce military service only—the first day of July, 1922; and
(c) in the case of a person who is suffering from disablement due to disease and was engaged in posttruce military service (whether he was or was not also engaged in pre-truce military service)—the 1st day of October, 1924.
(5) Whenever a person in respect of whom a service certificate has been issued and who was engaged in post-truce military service (whether he was or was not also engaged in pre-truce military service) is examined by the Army Pensions Board and at the date of his examination by that Board either is suffering from a disablement due to a wound attributable to military service which is less than twenty per cent. or is not suffering from any such disablement, then, if the Minister is satisfied that such person, at any time before his said examination, suffered during a substantial period from a disablement due to a wound attributable to military service and substantially exceeding twenty per cent., and that the case of such person was one of special hardship, the Minister, if he thinks proper so to do having regard to all the circumstances of the case may:—
(a) If such person is granted a gratuity of less than £75 under sub-section (1) of this section, grant to such person, in addition to the gratuity under the said sub-section (1), a gratuity of such amount, not exceeding the sum by which the gratuity under the said sub-section (1) falls short of £75, as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine, or
(b) If such person is not granted a gratuity under the said sub-section (1), grant to such person a gratuity of such amount not exceeding £75 as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine.
I move amendment 13:—
SECTION 10.
13. In sub-section (1) (a), lines 50 and 51, to delete the words "second column of the first schedule to this Act" and substitute therefor the words "fourth column of the second schedule of the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."
I take it that amendments 13 and 15 will be decided by one vote.
There is a general principle running through some of these amendments. Take amendment 13. The proposal there is that instead of the rates of pensions proposed in the schedule as the rates of pensions and gratuities in the first and second schedule of the Bill, the rates and pensions in respect of soldiers in the 1927 Act would apply. As this schedule stands, at present, the proposal is to grant to persons, to whom this Act applies, pensions greater by 50 per cent. than the pensions under the provisions of the Wounds and Disability Act allowed to soldiers who had been in the service of the State.
I could not accept this amendment. We have definitely stated that the pensions created and the general scale of pensions is 25 per cent. higher than that of soldiers.
It is more than that.
It is also 25 per cent. less than were granted to officers under previous Acts. We went on the principle which is carried out in the United States and other countries in relation to Volunteer Armies, that is, for men who volunteered for a particular war in times of emergency. There is not the same distinction as between officers and men in the Regular Army. Under the American pensions scheme there is a flat rate for all who served for a particular war or national emergency as volunteers irrespective of whether they served as officers or men. We have adopted that principle, because we think it a good one. While it gives to some of the pensioners a higher rate than they would be entitled to under other Acts, to others it gives less than they would be entitled to. Generally, I think this scheme should have been adopted under both of the other Acts. However, it would cause hardship if we were at this time to review the whole situation and to amend the other Acts in order to bring them into conformity with the scheme proposed here. We have simply faced the situation, and decided that a flat rate will be given to all who served. That rate is three-quarters of the amount given to officers and dependents of officers under the two previous Acts.
In a previous measure this House differentiated between the position of soldiers and of officers. I think that was a very reasonable frame of mind for the House to adopt. There is a different degree of responsibility, and there are other factors operating in the matter. No new principle that the Minister might come across and want to set up should induce this House to grant higher pensions to those who fought against the institution of the State in the way that has been described here, than to soldiers who preserved these institutions.
The men who will get pensions under this scheme did not fight against the institutions set up by the Irish people. They fought for them, and fought without pay. They did not expect and did not ask for pensions. We are not giving any ablebodied men pensions. We are not granting pensions to all the relatives of wounded men, but to relatives who were dependent upon those who were killed. These are the people we speak for, unlike the Deputy who got a special Act of Parliament passed in order that he might draw his full pension—not for a wound and not for disease arising out of service. All we ask is that those who were wounded should be properly looked after; that those who contracted disease should be properly looked after; and that the people who were dependent for their daily bread on those who were killed should be properly looked after for the rest of their lives.
But not at a higher rate, I suggest to the House, than in the case of the men who preserved these institutions.
Did you get yours?
This Bill deals with the men who fought to preserve the institutions of State set up by the Irish people, and who fought without pay. They did not serve for a few months with pay—like certain cases in which pensions have been granted—but served seven or eight years, and some of them ten years, without pay.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscan.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Hara, Patrick.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared carried.
I move amendment 14:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 58, to delete the words "seventy-five" and substitute therefor the word "sixty."
I wonder if, for a brief period, I might move the adjournment of the House so that the Leader of the Labour Party shall have an opportunity of discussing the principle of this amendment?
The Deputy would not be in order in moving the adjournment.
The principle of this amendment is, in effect, the same as that of the amendment with which we have just dealt. While I am prepared to take it that the House is deciding all these things on the lines on which it decided the previous amendment, I think the matter is so important—the granting of pensions, gratuities and allowances to persons who have been in arms against the State on a higher scale than they have been granted to soldiers who served the State—that we should hear from some member of an important Party like the Labour Party on it.
If the Deputy had anything more than lip sympathy for the private soldiers whom he sent to get killed or wounded, while he buried himself behind sandbags, he could have moved on the Committee Stage of this Bill to extend the pensions granted to other ranks. He did not do that.
Of course, that is not a fact.
It is a fact. The Bill is entitled "An Act to amend and extend the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 and 1927."
What the Minister states is not a fact. You, a Chinn Comhairle, would not accept an amendment from me on those lines.
The Deputy did not try. The Deputy is the "softy" of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. He is always given the dirty work.
I submit that you, sir, would not have accepted an amendment from me on those lines.
The Deputy is always given the dirty work to do. I did not expect much from him, but I certainly thought he would have the decency to leave, at least, the widows alone.
We are not talking about widows here.
The Deputy did not, of course, draft his own amendments. They were drafted for him. He was given the dirty work to do.
There is nothing about widows in this amendment.
Somebody who had less to do with the killing of the husbands of the women who will benefit under this provision, with the killing of the sons of the mothers who will benefit under it, with the killing of the fathers of the children who will benefit under it—somebody else than the Deputy should have been made do this dirty work. We want simply in these sections to treat widows and orphans as fairly as the State can afford.
There is nothing about widows or orphans in the amendment.
I do not hold up this Pensions Bill as the last word in what the State should do for the dependents of those who were killed on either side in the Civil War or the Black-and-Tan War, but it is the most the State can afford at the present time. I think that the Deputy would have been well advised to have left this alone, and that he should hesitate to seek the advice of the gentleman who drafted these amendments for him.
I am prepared to recognise that this amendment will be decided along the lines of the last amendment and that other amendments will be decided likewise. Here, however, we have proposed higher payments in respect of pensions and grants to persons who received wounds in operating against the State than this House, in previous legislation, gave the soldiers who preserved the State and its institutions. I raise the matter now simply to hear from the Labour Party on the matter. The Minister ought not attempt to carry on a discussion which will shield that Party and allow them to keep their mouths closed on the whole matter.
The Minister will say what he likes without any reference to what the Deputy would like him to say. The dependents who are being dealt with under this Bill are not the dependents of men who tried to over-throw the institutions of the State. They are the dependents of men who tried to protect the State without pay from the attacks of the Deputy and his dupes.
Oh, they did.
One would have thought that Deputy Mulcahy, having had such a hand in causing the deaths of so many of the relatives of the people who would benefit under this, should have the decency to leave it alone.
They are not dealt with at all in that section.
Are the gratuities and pensions these people have to get higher than the pensions Deputy Mulcahy himself gets though he was never wounded at all?
I take it that we are not going to hear from any member of the Labour Party on this matter.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 15.
In sub-section (2), lines 5 and 6, to delete the words "second column of the first schedule to this Act" and substitute the words "fourth column of the second schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 16.
In sub-section (3), lines 15 and 16, to delete the words "third column of the first schedule to this Act" and substitute therefor the words "fifth column of the second schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."
Amendment put and negatived.
AMENDMENT 17.
I move amendment 17:
To delete sub-section (5).
It would appear from sub-section (5) that the Bill contains provisions by which if a person comes along and is examined and found not to be suffering from any disablement, the Minister may still give him a grant of £75. I would like to hear the Minister on that.
What is Deputy Mulcahy suffering from?
This particular sub-section (5) enables the Minister, where the disablement was a serious one, but the person had recovered, to give an ex-gratia payment to the extent of 20 per cent. There are numbers of cases about the country where men were wounded nine or ten years ago and recovered. In these cases the relatives of some of these men got into debt in providing hospital treatment for them. Perhaps they had to nurse them for five or six years. That is so in cases that I am aware of. This sub-section would enable the Minister to make a very small ex-gratia payment.
Do we understand that the registration board will examine the cases, give the very same examination, and satisfy themselves in the same way with regard to the particulars of the case as in the case of a person who was suffering from something at the same time?
That will happen. The Minister has no power to grant a pension, and the Minister for Finance has no power to approve of pensions except in accordance with the Acts. The pensions or gratuities under this section will be covered and will have to conform to the same procedure as the other pensions and allowances. The service of the applicant will have to be adjudicated upon and assessed, and the degree of disablement will be assessed by the medical board.
Amendment negatived.
Section 10 put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
I am prepared to take amendments 18, 19 and 20, standing in my name as put and negatived.
Amendment 18:—In sub-section (1) (a), lines 10 and 11, to delete the words "part one of the second schedule to this Act" and substitute therefor the words "part two of the sixth schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27.)"—(General Mulcahy).
Put and negatived.
Amendment 19:—In sub-section (1) (b), lines 13 and 14, before the word "dependents" to insert the word "other" and delete the words "second schedule to this Act" and to substitute therefor the words "sixth schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."— (General Mulcahy).
Put and negatived.
Amendment 20:—In sub-section (2), lines 16 and 17, to delete the words "part three of the second schedule to this Act" and substitute therefor the words "part two of the sixth schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."—(General Mulcahy).
Put and negatived.
Section 12 put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
There are two amendments standing in my name, amendments 21 and 22:—
21: In sub-section (1), lines 15 and 16, to delete the words "part one of the second schedule to this Act" and substitute therefor the words "part two of the sixth schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."
22: In sub-section (2), lines 17 and 18, to delete the words "part three of the second schedule to this Act" and substitute therefor the words "part two of the sixth schedule to the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of '27)."
I am satisfied to take them as being negatived in the same way as the others.
Amendments 21 and 22 negatived.
Section 13 put and agreed to.
Sections 14 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act of 1923 shall be construed and have effect as if for the words "the Minister" now contained therein there were substituted the words "any Minister or Department of State."
I move amendment 23:—
Before Section 21 but in Part II of the Bill to insert a new section as follows:—
No payment shall be made under this Part of the Act of any pension or gratuity to or of any allowance or gratuity in respect of any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann to be a member of an organisation which according to the laws in force in Saorstát Eireann is unlawful after the date of his or her application under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of this Act.
This amendment is somewhat on the lines of amendment 12 to Section 8. It deals with the case of pensions which have been granted to a person who is found by a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann to be a member of an illegal organisation. I pointed out the general circumstances in which I considered that amendment No. 12 should be accepted, and I said, then, that I had in the end given up any hope of getting the Minister to see my point of view, but I suggest that the House on an important matter like that might expect to hear from the Labour Benches, and I just refer very briefly to what I said on the previous amendment. I pointed out that, as the members of the Labour Party know, there is an organisation in this country, having arms, claiming to be the legitimate successor of the men who are being dealt with in this Bill who revolted against the State in 1922 and 1923, and that they have taken on a very wide front of problems to solve—the problem of the Boundary, unemployment and capitalism and the destruction of the present Constitution of this country, and the putting of a new one in its place; and that, when brought before the courts in this country on a charge of illegal possession of arms the attitude is as shown in this typical example where a person, charged in the courts on 9th July last in respect of having illegally a rifle, two small arms and some ammunition, declared:
I am a soldier of the Republic and I cannot recognise the right of this court to try me on a charge of having those arms. They are the property of the Republican Army and have been stolen.
They reiterate from time to time that there is really only one means by which some of our problems may be solved— that is, arms—and they claim the guidance of Padraig Pearse in their philosophy in this matter. A quotation from one of them, speaking at Ballymahon, on 15th October, is as follows:
The I.R.A. was an organisation that could be used as a revolutionary army if the people who suffer under the present system of robbery and exploitation got into it and made it so and kept it so.
And again he warns his hearers that:
An I.R.A. which was not the armed expression of the revolt of the oppressed classes would be an actual danger, because it would keep the energetic, well-intentioned people busy learning to form fours while the capitalist exploiters were taking up their new alignments and adjusting themselves to changing political conditions.
I urge the House, and I particularly ask the attention of the members of the Labour Party in the House, who have not addressed themselves to this question while the Bill has been before the House, that, in the circumstances in which they find themselves, with the lessons of the past that are being under-lined and marked and paid for in this Bill, it is asking too much of this House to ask it to tax the people for the provision of pensions to persons who may then join an organisation like this, and, with the very same weapons, and the very same tactics, proceed, as they intend to proceed, to the destruction of these institutions and the destruction of this State. I submit that that is asking too much and that this amendment should pass.
Only that I am very well aware that the Deputy is as dull and stupid as he can be, I would be amazed at this amendment he proposes, because only someone as dull and as stupid as he is would take responsibility for it. I would advise the Deputy to get some friend of his to examine, in future, amendments which the enemy, who handed these amendments into his hand, suggests to him. Of all the amazing things! The suggested amendment reads:
Before Section 21, but in Part II of the Bill to insert a new section—— excluding all members of illegal organisations from getting pensions. Note the words, "but in Part II of the Bill." Part II alludes to certain organisations who fought for the State institutions here in the civil war. Part III of the Bill extends the benefits of the Acts of 1923 and 1927 to the section which fought against the institutions with Deputy Mulcahy and others, and the Deputy wants the House to adopt bare-facedly and unashamedly this new principle of law, that a certain section may be as illegal as they please and draw their pensions, but another section, to which the Deputy objects, may not draw their pensions if they are against the law. He has the stupidity to ask the Labour Party to vote for an amendment like that. As a matter of fact, anybody who is found guilty of contravening the law by a court of competent jurisdiction will automatically be suspended, because we have adopted, out of the 1927 Act, certain powers that will enable the Minister to withdraw pensions from people who are found guilty of breaches of the law. To show that this amendment is not just a sudden brainwave of some genious of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party but that it is definite, laid-down policy, I want to quote——
The Minister does not understand Part III, if so.
I want to quote from the Military Service Pensions Act of 1924, as follows:—
The Minister may in his absolute discretion refuse to issue a certificate of military service to any applicant who shall have, prior to the making of the report by the board of assessors, been sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term exceeding three months or any term of penal servitude. There it was left to the discretion of the Minister—"may in his absolute discretion"—to grant or refuse a certificate of military service, for the purpose of drawing a pension, even though the applicant were found guilty. The Deputy wants to have one law for one section. One section of military service pensioners like himself may break the law, may be found guilty by a court, may be members of an illegal organisation but may still draw the pension. Only one as dull and stupid as the Deputy would have the temerity to table such an amendment. He is the "softy" of the Cumann na nGaedheal family all right. The Deputy wants to exclude a certain section of the country from being members of an illegal organisation. "If they are found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction to be members of an illegal organisation." Now, the Deputy was found guilty by a very competent court of being a member of an unlawful organisation, by a jury of twelve,—not by a jury of twelve who knew nothing about him, that would be picked from a list of jurymen who would come to a court, but by a jury of twelve men who knew him intimately for four or five years, and they found him guilty of being a member of an unlawful organisation, and refused to have anything further to do with him. They kicked him out and still he got a pension, but it is only he and his private gunmen who can shoot and rob and loot if they please and still draw their pensions. No one else may. That is the principle that the Deputy wants the Dáil to accept. I will have none of it, anyway.
Quite apart from the case made by the Minister as to the uneven incidence of the amendment which Deputy Mulcahy has moved, I want to deal with another aspect of the matter referred to by him. I cannot help thinking that Deputy Mulcahy is one gentleman who lives but does not learn. What is the purpose of this amendment? I can only see it in the same light as many of the other amendments, as a resurrection of the bitter hatreds and passions of the Civil War period. The House yesterday evening and again this evening has been brought back to a very unhappy period, and this amendment which Deputy Mulcahy has submitted is not so much for the purpose of securing administrative perfection, is not for the purpose of securing legislative tidiness even, but solely for the purpose of dealing with this whole issue in the same way as many of his other amendments have done. Yesterday and to-day Deputy Mulcahy had a glorious opportunity of showing that he for one was prepared to forgive and forget and to rub the sponge over that whole period, but Deputy Mulcahy instead has chosen to resurrect, in the bitterest possible language, the unhappy memories of a period which everyone wants to think of just as an evil memory. He wants to know, again with the same excessive sense of tidiness, where does the Labour Party stand in relation to this amendment. I have already said this evening, and I repeat it here now, that I regard this whole Bill as an attempt—perhaps not a perfect attempt, but as some attempt at all events—to rub the sponge over that whole period, to draw down the curtain and shut away from our memories all the bitterness and the hatreds and the passions that that period produced. Deputy Mulcahy may well leave the excessive sense of tidiness alone, and may well look at this whole Bill as something that may help to flood out the memories which every patriotic Irishman and woman will seek to forget at the earliest possible moment.
A Deputy
Employ men of the White-Army.
It may be it is carrying a sense of tidiness to a great extent to require that a responsible Assembly like this will take cognisance of the fact that there is an organisation outside possessing arms——
A Deputy
They may stick to it.
——when I say organisation I am prepared to say organisations, when found in illegal possession of arms defying the Courts, defying the present Ministry, and defying this House, and saying that their object is to destroy this House, that their object is to destroy the capitalist system under which the country is doing its business at the present moment, and I do not think it is simply a matter of tidiness to ask this House when dealing with the granting of pensions in the case of an organisation which carried out a very terrible war against these institutions of Government here and against the people to take cognisance of the fact that similar organisations exist outside, and that if the people are going to be taxed to provide pensions for those who were wounded in 1921 and 1923 that they shall very definitely state they are not going to provide money to pay these pensions to persons who are members of the organisation or organisations that are to-day with the same weapons, the same intent organising and threatening this country and its institutions.
I do not know why Deputy Norton should accuse Deputy Mulcahy with having a sense of tidiness. If the Deputy wanted to exclude members of illegal organisations from getting pensions, why did he not put down an amendment to that effect?
Would the Minister say what Part III is about?
I cannot give the Deputy brains. I can give him a Bill; I can explain the Bill, but I cannot make him understand it. And I say the Deputy should not be so foolish as to accept amendments in future that he does not understand, and he should at least be assured by some friends, if he has one left in the world, that the amendments that are handed into his hands are such that he can put some face on them, and he should not attempt, he cannot attempt, and he has not attempted to make a case why this House should legislate that certain members of illegal organisations should not get pensions, but that others should.
Would the Minister develop that last point?
That point is quite clear, quite explicit, quite comprehensive, to anybody who has powers to comprehend.
Amendment put. The Committee divided, Tá, 43; Níl, 64.
Tá
|
Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Broderick, William Jos.Burke, Patrick.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlon, Martin.Cosgrave, William T.Davis, Michael.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Doherty, Eugene.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Gorey, Denis John.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Keating, John. |
Keogh, Myles.Kiersey, John.Lynch, Finian.McDonogh, Fred.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan,Joseph W.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Nally, Martin.O'Connor, Batt.O'Hara, Patrick.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reidy, James.Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.Roddy, Martin.Vaughan, Daniel.Wolfe, Jasper Travers. |
|
Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald. Briscoe, Robert.Browne, William Frazer.Carty, Frank.Cleary, Mícheál.Colbert, James.Cooney, Eamonn.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Curran, Patrick Joseph.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Everett, James.Flinn, Hugo V.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Gibbons, Seán.Gormley, Francis.Goulding, John.Hayes, Seán.Humphreys, Francis.Jordan, Stephen.Kelly, James Patrick.Keyes, Raphael Patrick.Kilroy, Michael. |
Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Bryan.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel. Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Norton, William.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Thomas J.O'Rourke, Daniel.Rice, Edward.Ryan, James.Ryan, Robert.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.). |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 22, 23 and 24 agreed to.
Sections 24 to 28 inclusive, First and Second Schedules, and Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2nd November, 1932.