I should like to know if the Minister contemplates doing anythink for those people excluded from the Bill. I am sure that there is nobody on either side of the House, if he agrees substantially with this Bill and the 1924 Act, but sees that an injustice is being done by leaving out the men who are left out. There is no use going into contentious matters on this Bill. As I said on Section 3, it is a Bill that we hope will heal old wounds. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider the position and not leave that running sore there still in connection with the pre-Truce period, including 1916. The Minister in reply to Deputy Mulcahy said that it would cost a large sum. I do not think that it would cost such a terrible sum.
Personally, I do not like the line of approach which the Minister took as to asking these people about their circumstances. They are either entitled to a pension or they are not, and it would be very humiliating for them to ask them to make the case that they are on the poverty line. I would appeal to the Minister to be more generous and deal with it as a matter of principle and right as to what the nation owes these men. If, in his opinion, the nation owes them nothing, then do not give them a pension. If he considers that the nation does owe them something, then give them a pension. As the period was short, as it was the most dangerous period, and as it was really the only national period, the period when we were fighting to put the English out, it is the period which will get the greatest recognition in history. Let us who have the power and authority not allow posterity to say that we neglected a section of the people who fought for and won freedom for this country.