I have notified Deputy Mulcahy that his amendment is out of order, as it involves an increased charge.
In Committee on Finance. - Military Service Pensions Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
There are three critical periods in the section: (1), the Easter Week period; (2), the period from the 1st day of April, 1920 to say, July, 1921—the pre-Truce period; and (3), the period from the 1st July, 1922, to September, 1923—the period of the civil strife here. As regards the amendment which I wish to insert in the section, while as you say, Sir, it is out of order by reason of the fact that it would increase the public expenditure and, therefore, can only properly be inserted by the Minister, I would ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the case which the amendment is expected to meet. The Minister proposes by this Bill to bring service against the State in the period during which there was civil strife here into line with service for the State. The general idea of the Bill then is that persons who served pre-Truce, whether in the Easter Week period, or the subsequent period, or both, and who also served on any side during the period of civil strife, shall become entitled to pensions. The Minister has put forward an Estimate which shows that there is a very considerable amount of money involved in the increased pensions which the Government proposes to give. The Minister is aware that when there was a difference of opinion on the Treaty question in 1921, there were men who had served in the Easter Week period, some of whom had given additional service in the period during the Anglo-Irish struggle up to July, 1921, but who did not take part in any way, through various reasons, including disillusionment, in the civil strife which took place afterwards.
The facts are, I am sure, known to the Minister. He will be aware that there is a small number of persons who were out in Easter Week, and who now find themselves, through one reason or another, in very bad circumstances. There is no need to emphasise the effect of the Easter Week rising on the subsequent developments in this country, and no need to emphasise the smallness of a number of persons involved in that rising. The amendment which I wish to put into this section would have the effect that persons who actually gave military service in Easter Week would get credit towards a small pension for the equivalent period allotted in this Bill to the Easter Week period; and that where men had been out in Easter Week, and had also given service in the Anglo-Irish war, such men would get the period of service allowable for those periods in respect of a small pension. It would be a small pension which the giving credit for that service would involve. I do not think the matter need be pressed on the Minister, but I do suggest that the Government which has taken the additional steps in extending the Pensions Act in the way in which the present Government has done it, could very easily and without increasing the public expenditure in any serious kind of way do a service to a certain number of men who are of a deserving class, particularly when there is such an enormous amount of public money available. It would be a gracious and as I say would not be an unreasonable act, in view of the extension that has been made in the Military Service Pensions Act. I would ask the Minister to give the matter favourable consideration. It simply needs the insertion by the Minister of this amendment on the Report Stage. I think it would give satisfaction to all sides of the House and would bring a certain amount of assistance to a small number of people who require that assistance.
I should like to ask the Minister why he restricts the Bill to a "male person"? If the Countess Markievicz were alive she would be excluded by the terms of the Bill. It is desirable that the Minister should extend its terms as there are others, not male persons, who might be lawfully included in the ambit of the section.
In supporting the case made by Deputy Mulcahy, I wish to appeal to the Minister and the Vice-President to give a pension to those people who gave service in Easter Week, and up to the Truce. In the Pensions Act of 1924 that service was recognised, provided it continued in the National Army after July 1, 1922. The purpose of this Bill is to follow on the same lines, but, as a condition for a pension, in addition to pre-Truce service, the applicant must show that he gave service on some side in the civil war. There was a certain amount of reason, considering the time, in not extending that Pensions Act to people who fought against the Treaty in the civil war, but now, as there is to be an obliteration of that in the form of a Pensions Bill liquidated at a cost to the State of £80,000 yearly, surely the people who gave service from Easter Week onwards, to the outbreak of the civil war, are better entitled to a pension than those who gave similar service, and fought against the people's Government from 1922 onwards, and for five or six years piled 6d. in the £ on the rateable valuation of property in this country. No one will begrudge a pension to those people who fought against the Treaty if it is going in any way to allay bitterness and to help the people who went out and fought, even against the Government of the day, who believed they were doing something that was in the best interests of this country. If we are going to liquidate the animosity that was bred at that period, and since, by £80,000 a year, I would not vote against it. I do not regret the introduction of this Bill, and, I do not regret the Vice-President's change of front. But we are told from the Government Benches that the authority the Government has for everything is the authority of the people. I do not know that the Government ever sought authority for this Bill, and——
The Deputy is now making a Second Reading speech.
I am dealing with Section 3.
The authority for this Bill might have been questioned on the Second Reading, but not on a section in Committee.
I am dealing with the classes of people that this Bill applies to, those who will be entitled to get pensions under it. I want to support the case made by Deputy Mulcahy for another class, and I want to remind the Vice-President that he has gone a long way in the last three or four years. If he looks up the paper he edited on July 12, 1930, he will find that he criticised the pension given to General MacKeon, saying that people who stood by him fought for the country for love of fighting.
Is this in order?
It is a Second Reading speech.
There is a small number of these people in the City of Dublin, and I know that they are in very bad circumstances. The Vice-President knows many of them, and knows that they are in bad circumstances. He knows that a deputation from them went before Dublin Corporation to ask that a percentage of labouring work should be allotted to them. They did the same before Dublin County Council. I understand from these men that they waited upon the Minister for Defence this week and put their case before him. Why should the present Government refuse these people the paltry pensions they are asking for? Why leave one little running sore if we are healing the two big sores. One has been healed, and the Government now proposes to heal the other. Why leave this little scratch festering? Why not help these poor fellows, who were in the small little band of 700 or 800 men who went out to fight for Irish freedom in Easter Week, 1916, and who carried the torch of freedom until the leaders divided amongst themselves? The men did not divide. Why not close the ranks now and give those who followed the leaders something to save them from the workhouse or from starvation, and enable them to live decently with their families? Many of these people lost five or six of the best years of their lives. They can never make up for that. The lives they had to lead prevented them settling down; the opportunity to do so was not given them. It is but a small recompense for the State to give such men little pensions. I would not have them too little, and for good service the least any of them should get should be £1 a week. If the country is not able to afford that, it is able to afford nothing. After all, it is a poor country that cannot look after the people who fought to secure its freedom.
The principle of this Bill was to even things up, and to see that those who fought in the I.R.A. during the civil war, and who had pre-Truce service, either in 1916 or during the Black and Tan War, were treated in the same way as those who fought against the I.R.A. in the civil war. The principle of the Act of 1924, as announced by Deputy Cosgrave, who was then President of the Executive Council, was to compensate for the long interruption of a man's life. I take it that the then Government looked into the question of giving a pension for 1916 service alone, both at the time they were drafting the Bill and in the following years during which they were in office, and I take it that they came to the conclusion it should not be done. At least, there was no attempt to introduce a Bill to provide pensions for those who had 1916 service alone. I was not out in 1916 myself, but I have certainly the highest regard for men who went out in Dublin and started the fight for independence in our day. I met representatives of the 1916 men, and I asked them to give me a list of their membership, and some indication of the financial circumstances in which they found themselves, so that we might have a look at the extent of the problem. I feel that if a Pensions Bill was brought in for the 1916 men alone, there would be a further demand from those who had Black and Tan war service alone, followed by a demand from those who had civil war service alone.
The previous Government had to draw a line somewhere, and this Government has also to draw a line. No matter where any Government draws a line within the capacity of the taxpayer to pay, there are bound to be hard cases left outside. There are a lot of things that we would like to see done for people who suffered in different ways during the war of independence. Their hardship, I think, should be relieved, not by Government action, but by some sort of voluntary action on the part of a body to be organised. If any Government frames a law to deal with cases of special hardship, it is always found that within the law there are cases to be dealt with which, from a human point of view, need not have been dealt with. It is only a voluntary body that can differentiate and pick out the people really deserving of relief and leave out the cases that are not.
I think myself that some sort of a benevolent organisation like the White Cross, or the old organisation started after 1916, should be established, and I am perfectly certain that all the people interested in the war of independence would subscribe and that that committee could pick out cases of hardship that accrued from the war of independence and deal with them. At any rate, the question of dealing with 1916 alone does not arise on this Bill and can be dealt with on another day. As I said, I have asked representatives of the 1916 men in the city to give me a list so that we can look into the problem and see what is the best way to meet it, if it is an urgent one.
Does the Minister not recognise that, as a matter of right, these people are deserving of consideration by the State and not as a matter of charity?
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 12, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Section 14 makes provision by which, when a military service certificate is required as a result of something which happened under the powers conferred on the Minister in Section 13, the person who is supposed to have the military service certificate would get a registered letter, and if he does not send the Minister his military service certificate, he becomes liable to a penalty of £10 and a further penalty of £1 for every day he delays sending in the certificate. What is intended in Section 13 that would require the Minister to annul a military service certificate and which would require such very drastic penalties if a person holding a military service certificate did not send in his certificate? I should like to know what is the intention underlying the powers which the Minister is taking under Section 13.
The whole intention of Section 14 is to secure an immediate reply.
What is the intention of Section 13?
The intention of Section 13 is simply to extend to the Referee the powers which were given to the Board of Assessors to adjudicate upon a case referred to him by the Minister. I think that is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining sections put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
(4) A person who at any date—
(g) was a battalion vice-officer commanding whose battalion at that date was not less than 300 in strength, or
(h) was a battalion adjutant whose battalion was at that date not less than 300 in strength, or
(i) was a battalion quartermaster whose battalion was at that date not less than 300 in strength, or
I move amendment No. 2:—
In Rule 1, Section 4, paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) to delete the words "three hundred" and substitute the words "one hundred" in each paragraph.
Amendment put and agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule, Third Schedule and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment.
Agreed that Report Stage be taken now.