Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Jul 1938

Vol. 72 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £468,928 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Pinsean Créachta agus Mí-ábaltachta, Pinsean Breise agus Pinsean Fear Pósta, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí (Uimh. 26 de 1923, Uimh. 12 de 1927, Uimh. 24 de 1932, agus Uimh. 15 de 1937); chun Pinsean, Liúntaisi agus Aiscí Seirbhíse Míleata (Uimh. 48 de 1924, Uimh. 26 de 1932 agus Uimh. 43 de 1934); chun Pinsean, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí (Uimh. 37 de 1936); agus chun síntiúisí agus costaisí iolardha ina dtaobh san, etc.

That a sum not exceeding £468,928 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Wound and Disability Pensions, Further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932, and No. 15 of 1937), Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932 and No. 43 of 1934), Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936), and for sundry contributions and expenses in respect thereof, etc.

The total amount which we want under this Estimate can be divided as follows: (1) Cost of administration, £17,701; (2) Incidental expenses, £4,682; (3) Cost of awards, £681,345; giving a total of over £703,000. The cost of awards is made up as follows: (1) Wound and Disease Pensions and Gratuities, £101,410; (2) Allowances and Gratuities to Dependants, £30,000; (3) Military Service Pensions, £545,000; (4) Retired pay and Gratuities £3,672; (5) Connaught Rangers Pensions, £1,263; making a total of £681,000 odd. All told, we are administering ten Acts of Parliament, eight of which confer statutory rights to pensions— including allowances—or gratuities on those persons who qualify under them. Running through the whole of these Acts there is a broad distinction between awards in respect of Service and awards in respect of Disability— that is, wound or disease—and the total figure of £681,345 in respect of awards may be said to represent £131,410 for Disability awards and £549,935 for Service awards.

These figures, however, need interpretation. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish between awards already made and those which may be made during the year; and, secondly, as many of the new awards are payable from various dates in 1932, 1934, and 1937, it is necessary to distinguish between the recurring amount of those awards and the arrears which they carry for first payment. Looked at from this two-fold aspect, the statutory liabilities included in the Estimate which have already matured in respect of disability awards are:—

	£
1923 Act—295 awards	31,442
1927 Act—215 awards	14,652
1932 Act—555 awards	44,694
1937 Act—30 awards	3,415

All told, under these disability awards there are 1,395 awards, and the total amount is £94,203 annually. In addition to this, we are providing £37,000 for new awards, including arrears. The estimate on which that sum is based is: new awards (recurring), £14,958; arrears (non-recurring), £15,419; gratuities (non-recurring), £6,830—making a total of some £37,000. Hence, of the total sum of £141,410 provided for disability awards, the recurring annual charge will be approximately £109,161, made up of: liabilities already matured, £94,203; liabilities in respect of new awards, £14,958—making a total of £109,161.

Turning to the Service aspect of the Estimate and applying the same distinctions, we find that of the total net sum, £549,935, required, no less than £293,921 is required for liabilities already incurred under the Acts. That sum is made up as follows:—

	£
1924 Act—3,207 awards	136,344
1934 Act—4,881 awards	155,706
Retired Pay—12 awards	752
Connaught Rangers Act—37 awards	1,119

There is a total there of £8,137 awards, and a total annual cost of £293,921. This leaves a balance of £256,014 to cover new awards, including arrears, and that figure is arrived at in the following manner:—

	£
New awards (recurring)	57,615
Arrears (non-recurring)	196,113
Gratuities	2,286

Hence, under the Service Acts, the charge annually recurring is estimated to be: liabilities already matured, £293,921; new awards, £57,615— making a total recurring charge of £351,536; and the total recurring liabilities are estimated to be: for disability pensions, £109,161, and for Service pensions, £351,536—the total giving £460,697; leaving a non-recurring sum provided in this Estimate of £220,648.

From time to time, criticism has been directed towards showing that the administration of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, is unduly slow, and it may not therefore be inopportune to deal with the criticism at this juncture by comparing the administration of the Act with that of the 1924 Act of which it is in a real sense the complement. Now under the 1924 Act there were 21,121 applications, of which only 13,537 were referred to the board of assessors because the remaining 7,584 were clearly persons to whom the Act did not apply. The board was set up on 4th October, 1924, and having completed its work resigned on 1st October, 1928. It was, therefore, administering the Act for a period of four years, and during that time it issued 3,850 qualifying reports.

The difficulties confronting the referee and Advisory Committee set up under the 1934 Act are far more serious than those which faced their predecessors. For one thing, the 1924 board had documentary evidence on which to rely for post-Truce service and rank, and as regards pre-Truce activities the events and the applicants were fresher in the minds of the certifying officers. No such documentary evidence exists for applicants under the 1934 Act. Records had to be compiled of the various ranks held in the organisations at critical dates, the memories of the certifying officers have naturally been dulled with the passage of time, and the applicants have been for many years out of contact with these officers. Now, under the 1934 Act it has been found necessary to refer all applications, totalling 57,752, to the referee who, with the committee, was appointed and began the work of administering the Act on 5th October, 1934. The committee has, therefore, been only three and a half years in existence and, despite the serious difficulties just referred to, the referee has issued 5,581 qualifying reports.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister, in his opening statement, referred to the fact that under this grouping of Army pensions we were dealing with several separate Acts. That is one of the things which make it difficult for a Deputy or anybody else to follow the matter. It is one of the things which create in the minds of the public the impression that the ex-Army men are over-pensioned. I think it is rather a pity, from the point of view of understanding the real position and facilitating the applicant, that the Department of Defence would not prepare some simple handbook containing the important points in those various Army Pensions Acts. Many of them are amendments to previous Acts, and, as the Minister knows, it is extremely difficult for any interested party to find under what particular Act an applicant should claim. Even a lawyer finds it difficult. Take the case of the ordinary applicant living down the country. It is impossible for that individual to frame his application in a proper way, and it is very often nearly as impossible for him to grasp the real significance of the reply he gets to his application when it reaches him. Deputies on all sides must have experience of that. A man applies, and he is told that his application cannot be considered under such-and-such an Act: that it is too late. It is true that it is too late for that Act, and it is equally true that in many cases the unfortunate individual is applying under the wrong Act.

I urged on the Minister previously the advisability of having some small office, such as is known elsewhere as "The Soldier's Friend," to which an individual who considered he had a claim for a pension would go. It would then be the function of that office to take up his case and fight it from that point onwards. As things are, you have the ordinary, simple individual faced with the full weight of the officialdom of a great Government Department. No matter how generously disposed they may be, all Government Departments are mainly controlled by finance, and the dice is loaded against the individual from the word "go." Every one of us, not only recently but all along, has seen genuine cases turned down because they were not properly presented. Subsequently, when somebody who was more familiar with the Acts came along, took up his case for the individual and presented it in a better manner, the original finding was upset and justice was done to the individual. But it is only one applicant out of 100 who can get his case competently looked after. The other 99 are the victims of circumstances, circumstances due to the fact that it is nobody's express duty to look after the case of the applicant, to present it properly, and to fight it along through its various stages.

It is true that there is throughout the country a grave and growing discontent with the delays in administering those Pensions Acts, particularly the Pensions Act of 1934. The Minister falls back on the line of defence that it is very much on a par with the Pensions Act of 1924, and that the speed of dealing with the cases in the last four years is equal to the speed with which cases were dealt with between 1924 and 1928. That is a case of special pleading. It is a misleading case unless the Minister gives us the pensions staffs that were there in 1924 and the pensions staffs that are there at the present moment. I would venture to say at a shot that there are five times as many people in the Pensions Department to-day as were there in 1924. If you are to judge work against work, on a case or capitation basis, there should be five times as many cases turned out per annum now. If I were to present the case in that manner it would be just as unfair as the method in which the Minister attempted to present it to the Dáil. The circumstances are different; the types of cases are different; the records are different, and there is a lot more difficulty nowadays in getting a proper statement of each case. I could quite understand the 1934 Act operating with far less speed than the Act of 1924 if the staffs were equal, but even that does not explain to my mind—nor to the minds of people closer to the Department of Defence— why it is that individuals who made their applications four or five years ago have not since heard anything about those applications.

If any of us write to the Department with regard to So-and-so's application, which was forwarded in 1934, we never get any satisfactory answer. We are told it is under consideration, or that it will receive early consideration. It is unreasonable that the unfortunate applicant, who lodged an application four or five years previously, should be left so long without any knowledge as to how the claim was progressing. I want to be candid on this question. In the Act of 1934 were included pensions provisions for men who had been engaged in opposition to this Parliament. I was opposed to that measure. If a similar measure was proposed to-morrow, I would be equally opposed to it but, from the day that Act became law, I never even criticised it. From the day it became the law it was the law of this land and we have always stood for everybody getting their rights according to the law, whether we agree with it or not. We have never got from the Minister anything like a straightforward statement as to the order in which cases are taken. It is not done in any geographical order. Apparently they are not taken by rank, or by the date on which a claim was lodged. The prevailing belief is that the priority of a claim is decided by the amount of political influence behind it, and by the political importance of the particular claimant. It is, at least, true to say that those of political importance got their claims through very early, while others are still waiting. If the Minister is prepared to tell the House that there is a reasonable and a fair method of procedure with regard to the order in which claims are taken then, at least, we would be in a position to convey that message to people who are bothering Deputies with questions as to what happened to their claims. No one can understand the delay; no one understands in what order claims are considered, and no information worth while is given in reply to communications addressed to the Pensions Department.

There is another matter in connection with that Act to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. Under the Acts some very small pensions are given. I am not saying that the pensions given are not the legal entitlement of those who got them, according to the services rendered, but there are pensions as low as £6 or £7 a year, and from 12/- to 14/- a month. A pension of that size is of very little use to the individual. The real effect of drawing 10/- or 12/- a month is to put that man further back in the queue waiting for employment. His draw from the Unemployment Fund is less by that amount and, consequently he is lined up for employment later than his neighbour. Under the first Army Pensions Act the question of very small pensions was met, pensions for disabilities less than 20 per cent. being met by lump sum gratuities, rather than giving pensions of £5 or £6 a year. I do not know why that precedent was departed from in subsequent Acts. The departure was unwise and, I think, at this stage provision should be made to allow pensioners to commute their small pensions. Let the Minister decide the amount. Say that the pension is less than £12 a year, the applicant, if he so desires, should be allowed to commute that pension for a stated sum. I cave forwarded applications from individuals —and I am sure other Deputies have done so—who are in receipt of very small pensions of £8 or £9 a year offering to surrender them for small lump sums of £30 or £40. In some cases they wanted to buy their homes under the recent scheme for the purchase of labourers' cottages. That was a reasonably sound commercial enterprise and, in my opinion, should be encouraged. In other cases, the applicants wanted to start as hackney-drivers and required the purchase price of cars. The purchase of a cottage, the paying off of arrears on an old cottage, or the launching a man in life as a taxi-driver would be much better for the persons and their families than pensions of 12/- a month, because these pensions are merely a disability when men are unemployed. The fact that they are drawing 12/- a month means that they draw 12/- less by way of unemployment money, and they are put further back in the line for employment when it arises.

With regard to the machinery for operating later Pensions Acts, there is a system by which units elect a representative officer who speaks for all in the case of appeals. That is perfectly sound in theory but, in practice, it does not work out fairly in every case. The Minister is aware of the fact that the Act of 1934 is an addition to the Act of 1924. The latter Act applied to men who were in the Volunteers and subsequently in the National Army. The Act of 1934 applied to people who were in the Volunteers, but who subsequently were not in the National Army. Under the Act of 1924 the main body of one group was catered for. Ninety per cent. of the applications under the 1934 Act belonged to one political brand, naturally, because of the circumstances. A group of these in any area met and appointed a representative officer, and he, being human like the rest of us, will look after his friends before he will look after his foes.

The claims of those who do not belong to his political camp are very often left last and, in some cases, very inadequately presented. I know of a case, to which the Minister's attention was drawn, where there is an individual drawing a pension for service over a period of two years in a Leinster county when during those two years that individual was a soldier in the British Army, and a man who is at home holding that rank is denied his pension according to his rank because somebody else has already got the pension in that rank and position. I am not raising that here without taking very full and proper steps to ensure that the Minister would be made aware of the facts ten months before I raised it and so that there will be no mistake I will give the Minister and his secretary the name in private. So that there would be no mistake, I saw to it that the letter went by registered post. I expected, when that statement reached the Minister, giving day and date, that at least there would be a very full investigation carried out, and that, as part of the investigation, the person who signed that statement, namely the disappointed applicant, would be called on to give evidence before some committee. I am not prepared to take the word of everybody that comes along with a statement. When that case was put to me I said, "Write it all down there. Sign your name to it. Put it in a registered envelope and send it to the Minister." Up to a month ago that man had heard nothing. It may be that in the ordinary course that letter came along and was referred back to the board or department or committee that had previously given the pension to the other man and that it was never followed up any further, but it is the type of case that should be closely looked into. If the statements contained therein are untrue or inaccurate then that is that, but, as long as that statement is there, over a signature of a fairly well known individual, and no inquiry is carried out, it is hard to expect any of us to have complete confidence in the administration of these pension schemes.

With regard to the pension scheme for serving officers and soldiers, some 12 months ago we discussed that fairly fully here. Since then the Minister had 12 months to reconsider his position. I was hopeful that between then and this certain amendments would have been introduced. The principle on which the whole scheme is based for officers and for men is the principle of pensioning officers and men not according to their pay but according to their rank. If, we will say, in an asylum the attendants were all equal in rank and the pay of one was four times as high as the others because he happened to have particular diplomas or particular qualifications, there would be an outcry if they were all pensioned, according to their rank and not according to their pay. In every pension scheme in the world there is a direct relation between pension and pay and everybody's pension is a definite proportion of his pay. In this particular pension scheme the Minister departed entirely from that principle and he made the condition of pension depend on rank. Influential and representative people outside of politics entirely and detached from the Army, but in a position to put up impartially and fully the complaints of some of the people in the Army who were affected applied respectfully to the Minister for an opportunity to discuss the matter with him. The door was banged in their face and they got back a curt note to the effect that the Minister did not see that any useful purpose would be served by even meeting them. It is a very bad headline for a Government Department. Those men did not engage in any propaganda or in any publicity. The leaders of the Irish medical profession, before a line was written or a word spoken, thought the fairest course was to see the Minister and put their case in private to him. That was the treatment they got. It was an act of discourtesy that was entirely undeserved. It was an act of discourtesy that does not reflect any credit on the Minister's administration. It was an act of discourtesy that showed not only a lack of consideration for the people who made the application, but a callous lack of consideration for the individuals on whose behalf the application was made. That is in the past. That was 12 months ago. The Minister has since had 12 months to reconsider that action as well as others and I would urge very strongly on the Minister that, if a similar application is made to him in future, whether he agrees with the case put up or not, at least he should extend the courtesy of an interview to properly authenticated representatives of groups in his forces who want to discuss with the Minister the future position of members of his forces.

Mr. Doyle

I would like to join with Deputy Dr. O'Higgins in his reference regarding the delay there has been in dealing with these military service pensions. I do not want to occupy the time of the House in going further into that particular point, but I would like to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of those pre-Truce I.R.A. men, or what are better known as the men of 1916. I do so because I know at the moment there are quite a number of them who are in very distressed circumstances. I think it is a lamentable thing that at this hour of the day, having regard to all the trials and troubles we have gone through in the meantime, this particular group have not got the attention to which, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the Government itself, they were entitled. The delay that has taken place in dealing with them first of all before this pension board is one side of it, and the other side is that the wheel of time having passed around, many of them who appear before the board have not the opportunities afforded them now, after so many years, of giving sufficient evidence in order to bring their case to the point that would show they had a substantial claim to whatever is allowed under the Act. For that particular reason I would suggest that the Minister might wisely consider at some early date the possibility of being more generous to them in that respect. I think that they in particular are entitled to far more consideration than has been given to them.

Mr. Norton

I wish to raise on this Estimate the general policy of the Department in respect of the claims which have been submitted under the Pensions Act of 1934. I understand the Minister stated that approximately 5,500 cases have been certified out of approximately 57,000 cases. Of course, I understand a larger number than 5,500 have actually been investigated and that where certificates of active service have not been issued and entitlement to pension acknowledged, it means that the applications have been deferred for further consideration. I do not know whether the deferment for further consideration is calculated to raise any greater hopes in the minds of applicants whose cases have been deferred, or whether it is just a convenient method of putting aside cases in which there is no intention of granting a pension, and subsequently issuing unfavourable decisions in a large batch of these cases. I am afraid that unfortunately the latter is the intention.

What I want to complain of is this, that although the Army Pensions Board has been functioning over four years, a relatively small number of claims has been decided, having regard to the total number of applications received. Can the Minister give us any indication as to how long it will take before all the claims are decided? At the present rate of consideration it is going to be many years before the last of these applications is reached. If the policy of deferring cases for further consideration is pursued it may mean that it will be a great many years before some applicants will know whether or not they are entitled to a pension, whether there is any prospect of obtaining a pension.

I have come across cases in my own constituency and elsewhere where persons who have sought pensions under the 1934 Act are still living in a kind of pathetic hope that one day they will receive an intimation from the Army authorities that a pension has been granted them and that the arrears will be paid them. Many of these applicants have approached me and have asked whether it would be possible for them to get an early decision on their claims so that they may obtain some money with which to stock land, purchase implements for land operations, or finance some type of trading or undertaking calculated to increase their means of existence. I have had to point out to many of them that the average pensions granted to persons in category E amount to aproximately £19 a year, 8/- a week, and I have told them that it is not wise to imagine that they can have a well-stocked ranch even if they get a pension at that rate. That is the average rate of pension, according to the figures supplied by the Minister.

I think the applicants for pensions whose cases have been considered ought to be told definitely whether there is any prospect of their getting a pension in order not to buoy them up with hopes which, I am afraid, in a lot of cases, will not be realised. I think it would be a better policy on the part of the Department to let the applicants know definitely what the intention is. The cases have been considered and at this stage there is very little likelihood of fresh evidence being produced, and I think the board could decide definitely whether or not the applicant, will get a pension. It might be better for an applicant to be aware that he had no chance of getting a pension; in that way he would be saved a good deal of disappointment and disillusionment later on.

There is another matter in connection with the administration of the Act to which I would like to make reference. A considerable number of persons have been called before the board for examination. They have attended there and produced their own evidence and have also submitted evidence from corroborating authorities supporting their claim for a pension. Many of the applicants have been before the board as long as 12 months ago and they are apparently unable to obtain any decision on the applications dealt with in person by the board. Could the Minister give the House some indication as to the cause of the delay of six, nine and 12 months in communicating a decision to an applicant? I know cases in which pensions have been granted and cases in which men with service at least as meritorious as the service rendered by those who have got pensions have had their cases dealt with by the board, 12 months have elapsed, and yet there is no decision. Delay of that kind is inexplicable and unjustifiable. There should be some relationship in point of time between the date upon which an applicant appears before the board and the date upon which he gets the decision.

I think a good deal of the disappointment and dissatisfaction which have been caused over the administration of the Act is due to the delay in deciding claims, the abnormal delay which takes place between the appearance of a person before the board and the decision on his claim. It is not possible to discuss here the manner in which claims for pensions are assessed, but there is dissatisfaction at the small amount of pension granted to persons in categories D. and E. When one sees the average of these pensions one can have grounds for expressing sympathy with the dissatisfaction that is so manifest. It is not possible, either, to discuss on what basis the Army authorities proceed with the allocation of service and the assessment of pension. While dissatisfaction will probably continue under any type of Pensions Act that is passed, I think the matter of delay in deciding pension claims gives ground for a very genuine grievance. Some effort ought to be made by the Minister's Department to accelerate the consideration of pension claims and decisions on the claims which have been considered. If, after four years, certificates have been issued in only 5,500 cases, we ought to know how long it is going to take before all the claims are decided.

We should have some indication as to when those who are not likely to get pensions under the board's method of assessing their entitlement to pensions, are likely to be informed of the unsatisfactory nature of their applications. It is a mistaken policy to buoy people up with hopes which are not likely to be realised. If the Minister would make a statement on that matter, it will help to dispel some of the dissatisfaction and it would enable a large number of applicants to measure their chances of securing pensions. It probably would enable them, realising that their applications might not be so successful, to make other arrangements for financing some of their activities. At present in many cases they are relying upon the prospect of getting a pension as a means of extricating them from some financial difficulties.

I hope the Minister will deal with matters of that kind. Every Deputy is aware of the interest taken in this subject throughout the country, and I am sure every Deputy will welcome an authoritative declaration from the Minister which will enable claimants to know precisely where they stand in respect of their claims for pensions.

Mr. M. Morrissey

There is no doubt that a good deal of dissatisfaction exists throughout the country with reference to the slowness of the Department of Defence in dealing with applications under the 1934 Act. There are a few points that I want to raise. One has been stressed by Deputy Norton—that is the delay in dealing with claims. That is one of the principal grievances we have throughout the country. I suggest to the Minister that after four years he should seriously consider changing the methods that he is adopting in administering the Act. I was wondering if it had been suggested to the Minister before, or if it ever occurred to him, to send the Military Service Pensions Board on circuit down the country into the different brigade areas or to divide the board up in sections and send these sections on circuit throughout the provinces. I am sure it would take only a short time to deal with all the applications in these brigade areas. Failing that, the Minister might consider some other method of speeding up the hearing of applications.

There is one type of applicant who at the moment is very uneasy as to what is going to become of him under the Military Service Pensions Act of 1934. I understand that the Military Service Pensions Board are dealing only with applicants who have qualified service or who in other words took part in major engagements prior to the truce such as a barrack attack, an ambush or something of that kind which could be considered a major engagement. The company man in country areas who had a very good service, who was carrying despatches or barricading roads by day, and who, at night, was protecting active service units and laying land mines or engaging in other activities which the local units were called upon to perform, is in a very uncertain position. I should like the Minister to make some statement as to whether the service given by men like those is going to find recognition under the 1934 Act. At the moment I believe such cases are not being dealt with and I should be glad if the Minister would make a statement on that point. If the present Act does not permit the Minister to deal with those cases, I would suggest that he should introduce an amending Act which would enable him to do so. I know what those men suffered during the struggle even though they were not actually members of flying columns or did not take part in major engagements. They helped very considerably in bringing about the position which we enjoy to-day, and I think it would be unfair if their services were not recognised under the Act. I understand, of course, that active service has not been fully defined by the Minister or the Military Service Pensions Board. Perhaps, by broadening the definition of active service, the applications of those men could be considered. I should like the Minister to make some pronouncement on that particular point.

There are also a number of cases in which no decision has so far been given, and I would ask the Minister to take steps to speed up a decision in those cases and to let the applicants know whether they are entitled to an award or whether their cases will come up at a later date, and that they will then be entitled to an award. The present position is very unsatisfactory and a source of uneasiness to such applicants. They believe themselves, and I believe too, that the majority of them are entitled to pensions. Still, after four years, they cannot get anything definite from the Department to show where they stand. I should also like to refer to the position of men who were in the I.R.A. prior to the truce and who took part in no major engagements, and, further, to the case of men who joined the I.R.A. at the truce or at the commencement of the civil war. Those men had good service with the I.R.A. during the civil war, and I think as the 1934 Act stands at present they are not entitled to recognition. I think that is unjust. I would suggest to the Minister that something should be done to amend the Act so that the claims of those men could be considered. A number of them had very good active service during the civil war and the least that should be done is to recognise that service under the Act.

Another point on which I would like to have some information from the Minister has reference to the attitude of the Military Service Pensions Board in asking brigade committees throughout the country to segregate the men who are entitled to pensions from the men who are not. I think it should not be the duty of brigade committees down the country, who have done a good deal by way of compiling records of the applicants, to decide on that matter. I think the responsibility should not be placed upon them of asking them to state who is entitled to a pension and who is not. I am referring to the A and B lists sent out by the board. In my opinion, no brigade committee should be asked to state what applicant is entitled to a pension and what applicant is not. That is a matter for the board and the board only. Each applicant, I hold, should be entitled to give his evidence and it is then a matter for the board to decide whether he is entitled to a pension. Finally, I should like to ask the Minister, if he can see his way to do so, to increase the allowances given to relatives of those Volunteers who lost their lives from 1918 to 1923. A number of those cases have been dealt with under the 1924 Act, but the sums awarded have been very small and entirely inadequate. I would urge the Minister to provide larger allowances in these cases and I should be glad if, in his reply, he would give some definite information on the other points I have raised.

Colonel J. Ryan

I am not going by any means to oppose this Vote. We have so much sympathy, so much generosity and so much compassion especially from Deputy Morrissey that I cannot oppose it, although I doubt if it was advisable in this country ever to have a pensions scheme. In many other nations people served their country and they did not serve it for the sake of gain. During the past five or six years it appears as if everybody, especially the people on the opposite side, who in former years shouted the loudest about pensions, have been working all their lives for gain. That is the awful prospect facing us. For the past four or five years you have a queue of people round you day after day looking for something. Taking the Military Service Pensions Act as it stands, as an addition to the 1924 Act, perhaps it was a good thing, coming as it did after the Civil War and after all that trouble, but then that Act should be administered in the ordinary way and each and every man should get the benefit of it.

Who were called by this board first? People on the Government Benches opposite who are drawing £360 a year. These were the people who were the first to get pensions. Who were the first men from the country to be called before this board? The pivotal men here, there and everywhere in the Fianna Fáil organisation were sent for and got pensions and as I can prove to the Minister and tell him in the House here in public, men who had not a day's service either pre-truce or post-truce in my county are getting pensions of £100 and £110 a year. I will prove that men from my county were brought before that board to certify that other men had given service when they themselves were not there on the occasion at all. Those people who were brought here to certify in that way were never on a "job." Can the Minister deny that? I want him to deny it. I will give him the facts and I am prepared to stand over the facts.

What I want is fair play for all. In fact, I have had more supporters of Fianna Fáil coming to me within the last few months, asking me to see that they should get fair play, than I have had of supporters of any other Party. I have had practically nobody from my own Party or from the Labour Party coming to me, but I have had people who supported Fianna Fáil through thick and thin for the last four, five and six years, some of them pretty good gunmen. Perhaps it is not a great boast to make about them, but at least they did their "job" so far as the Act is concerned. Those men cannot get a pension. I could give the Minister half-a-dozen such cases, but I have a specific case in mind. Anybody who was ever in the headquarters of the Volunteers in Tipperary from 1916 onwards should know that man. He was in engagements and under fire. He was ordered, I think by George Plunkett, to keep quiet. That man was brought out on the road and riddled with bullets. Nine bullets were put through him. Two officers who were brought from my county could not certify that that officer had military service. Luckily, his em— ployer was very decent, and he was sent to a home in Waterford and, although every part of his body was riddled with bullets, he recovered, but had to disappear again, until the Black and Tans left the country. Yet that man is said not to have had military service. Why not ask somebody who knows something about the work of the Volunteers during these periods to certify in these cases? Why ask men who were never on a "job," who took no part in the movement, who just came in at the truce and made themselves kings. I should like to say a lot more, but I will not. Things have been bad enough in the past, and the sooner we forget them the better. These men made themselves kings. They shouted "Up the Republic," and went out to fight, but did not fight. These are the people in my county to whom I am referring as having got big pensions, and who had not a day's service, either pre-truce or post-truce. I will prove that to the Minister. If he wants the names, I will give them in the House. I can give half-a-dozen from memory.

The reason I mention this is because I want the Minister at least to see that fair play will be given. It is the Minister's job to see that a fair show will be given by the Pensions Board to every applicant regardless of his position in life. I am sure the Minister is honest enough to see that that will be done, because the smallest man in the street is as much to me or the Minister as the biggest man, no matter what Party he may work for. The time has gone for bothering about what Party a man works for. I asked the Minister to see that the board gives a fair show to everybody. I have often written to the board and I have never told them a lie. Under the 1924 Act I think I have helped to deprive more people of pensions than I helped to get pensions. Every time the present Pensions Board wrote to me I told them the truth about each applicant. Yet, what has taken place? Men who knew nothing about the applicants were brought up and certified for certain people and did not certify for others. I hope the Minister will look into that matter.

There is another matter, and that is the delay in dealing with applicants for pensions. Other Deputies have dealt with this, and I think it is rather a serious matter. As Deputy O'Higgins said, the staff is about five times larger than the staff who dealt with pensions formerly, and they are making ten times more inquiries. You have a big staff, and yet you keep a lot of people waiting for pensions. In each area, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there is a committee of some kind. You may call them regional committees if you like, but they call themselves Old I.R.A. committees. All these are seemingly working for the Pensions Board, and because of that it should be much easier to deal with the applicants for pensions than it was under the 1924 Act, because there were no committees then. I think the Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench are a good deal to blame for all this.

When the 1934 Act was passed, I think it was at their instance that these committees were set up and they called them Old I.R.A. committees. It did not matter whether a person was born in 1920 or before it, so long as he paid a "bob" to the Old I.R.A. committee he became a member.

In many districts where we had not even a company of the Volunteers at all, where perhaps there were only one or two men in touch with the I.R.A., an Old I.R.A. committee was set up when this pension scheme came into existence. Perhaps I am wronging the Minister and his colleagues, but I believe that it was at their instance these committees were set up in order to create a big body of opinion around them by promising them all pensions. That ought to be stopped. The people of the country have been fooled long enough. We have had enough of trouble from the truce up to the present day, and it is nearly finished now. Let this thing be stopped. The Minister should not encourage these committees except they are really committees of the Old I.R.A. Do not encourage a lot of people to go into an association in order to get something out of the country and to bleed the people white. The country has been bled long enough. Let the Minister stop that.

We are all anxious that every person who gave service should get something. I am not concerned as to whether a person fought in 1918, 1919, 1920, or in 1922 and 1923. I do not blame the people who fought in 1922 and 1923 because I believe they were merely fooled. I believe they are just as much entitled to a pension as I am when there is a pension scheme in existence, but I say to the Minister and the Government, do not continue to fool the people any longer, do not have these committees that we have in every parish throughout the country. They are the bane of our existence, they are a terrible nuisance. You have not real Old I.R.A. committees. You have dozens of them which were set up at the instance of people on the Government Benches. They are becoming a nuisance to men in public life and to the people. All this should be stopped and the pensions work should be completed. There are 50,000 applicants for pensions. With ordinary efficiency, the Pensions Board should be able to do their work more quickly. If necessary, the staff should be augmented so that the work can be finished within a year or two. I should like to know from the Minister if I send him the names of the people whom I mentioned here as receiving pensions, and who had not either pre-truce or post-truce service, will he look into the matter and deal with it.

I hope the Minister will deal with that matter when he is replying. There are dozens and dozens of men who have not complied with the provisions of the Act. Only yesterday I was down in the bar and I met there a dozen men who had come up to Dublin about their pensions. It cost them a couple of pounds to come up, and some of them found it very hard to get the money. They were very sceptical as to whether their claims for pensions would be successful or not. They were told by the committees to which I have already referred, set up at the instance of the Minister, "Go and tell the board anything and you are bound to get a pension." That kind of thing ought to be stopped. I will not say anything more about these cases for fear I might jeopardise the claims of these men. But it is a terrible thing to have that happening. Under the 1924 Act a big number of claims were thrown out. That was done in a decent way. The applications were not kept hanging over, but were thrown out right away, and the applicants were not put to the expense of coming up to Dublin. You have many decent men being brought up before the Pensions Board and nothing is being done for them. They are decent men who would not take a false oath. At the present time you have a lot of people looking for pensions who, in their own estimation, are so-called kings. They became kings when the Truce came, but they never cared a straw about the country.

In the early stages of this pension business there was a good deal of argument as to who was a captain of a company, or as to who was a battalion officer at a certain period. During the struggle men had been shot and others were put in jail. Nearly 13 years later this Pensions Act was passed, and then a lot of argument arose. You had people who never gave a day's service in the pre-Truce period going around and forming companies in 1933. They were forming companies and battalions in order to get pensions as battalion officers, a position that they never occupied until after the Truce. They were forming companies in places where there never was a company. I would ask the Minister to go into all this, because it is awful to see what is taking place in the country to-day. I know what I am talking about, and can give the Minister the facts, figures and the names. I am sorry that some of the Deputies from Tipperary are not in the House, because if they were they would know what I am talking about. The whole thing is a terrible shame. The chairman of the Pensions Board certainly knows that men got pensions in the early stages who were not entitled to them.

I gathered from the Minister's speech this evening that there is not much hope of retaining in the Army those officers who have reached a certain age. I would appeal to the Minister, in the case of officers who were connected with the national movement in any way from 1916 to 1921, to give them the fullest pension possible when they are going out. As I said last night, these men gave good service to the country during the Volunteer period, and there ought to be some recognition of that now when they are going out of the Army under the present regulations. I hope the Minister will do all he can for them.

Mr. Davin

About ten years ago, when sitting in this House, I listened to the then Minister for Defence state that, in his opinion, there were not more than 3,000 men actively associated with the Irish Republican Army in pre-Truce times. We had the statement from the Minister for Defence to-day that 57,000 applications were sent in under the 1934 Act and 21,000 under the 1924 Act; that under the 1924 Act 3,801 pensions are being paid, and that under the 1934 Act 5,500 odd qualifying certificates have been issued. The Minister, in his introductory speech, did not deny the fact that justifiable complaints are being made regarding the delay, and attempted, as he did last year, to advance reasons why the rate of progress in dealing with these 57,000 applications is so slow. He compared the work done under the 1934 Act, with an increased staff, with the work done under the 1924 Act under the Cosgrave Government. I join with Deputy Norton in protesting against the delay that takes place in advising applicants as to the result of the hearing of their cases before the board. I can state definitely that I am aware of some cases where applicants appeared before the board one and a half years ago, and a year ago. These applicants are still awaiting a decision from somebody in authority.

Mr. Gorey

They will get it now any day after the election.

Mr. Davin

There may be something in that, because while the Government were hanging on to office by the skin of their teeth, as they thought, there might be some justifiable reason for refusing to ask the postal workers to carry too heavy a load of letters on any particular morning in advance of the general election, informing a large number of the 57,000 applicants that they were not going to get what they had been repeatedly promised. I want to say quite frankly that, while I would not associate the Minister for Defence with this, the opinion does prevail in the country that unless you are actively associated with the Fianna Fáil Party you have very little chance of getting a pension under the 1934 Act. Again, I want to say quite frankly that I have no evidence that the Minister is in any way associated with that kind of propaganda. But that kind of propaganda was carried on within the last five weeks in my own constituency. People there were told that if they did not want to lose their pensions they should vote for Fianna Fáil, and those waiting for a hearing before the board were told that if they wanted to have any hope of getting a hearing before the board and a pension they would have to give a clear majority to Fianna Fáil by voting for the Fianna Fáil candidates. I want the Minister to say quite definitely—the Minister is a very blunt man—whether anybody except the Fianna Fáil Deputies sitting behind him, or the local leaders of Fianna Fáil in the country, have any right to make representations on behalf of those who are seeking pensions. If the Minister says that members on the Opposition Benches have no right to make representations or that any representations they make will have no effect, I shall gladly accept that decision and pass over to those sitting behind the Minister the responsibility for carrying out some of the possible and impossible promises they made in the last election and in previous general elections.

I have been invited within the last year to attend a meeting of members of a certain brigade in my constituency. I replied that if the other four Deputies for the constituency were invited to the same meeting and were willing to attend, I should go there but that I was not willing to go as an individual Deputy if the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies were to be absent, seeing, that the five of us had equal responsibility. I never heard any more about that matter. Those 5,500 persons who are in receipt of pensions are all right. There is no fear that their pensions will be taken from them by this Government or any succeeding Government, no matter what may have been said by the local agents of the Fianna Fáil Party in the course of recent electioneering activities. Pensions authorised by the Cosgrave Government, by this Government, or by any succeeding Government are not going to be taken from those to whom they have been awarded. People who believe that sort of silly story, circulated for election purposes, are very foolish. I should like to know from the Minister how many cases have been heard by the board, particularly during the last year; how many of the cases heard during the last year have been decided, and how many of the cases heard are still waiting for decision. I should like to know how many applicants who appeared before the board during the last year, nine months or six months, are still waiting for a decision. I hope I am not putting the Minister to too much trouble in asking for that information. I am sure that the officials who are sitting by his side will be able to get him that information in five minutes. If the information is available and if the Minister is willing to give it, will he say why the decisions are held up in these cases.

I have here a list of 78 names sent down by the Pensions Board seven months ago to a certain brigade officer in my area stating that in the opinion of the persons responsible—I presume the Service Pensions Board—these applicants did not appear to have the necessary qualifications for pension. In these cases, the individuals had not been called before the board and, so far as I know, have not yet been before the board. Officers of the local brigade were invited to agree with the decision of the Service Board. I want to know from the Minister under what statutory or other authority any officers of a brigade area are authorised to help the board in deciding issues of this kind, especially where applicants have not been given an opportunity of appearing before the board. I should like the Minister to quote the section of the Act or the regulation under which brigade officers are invited to interfere in the administration of the Act. I ask him to quote the section of the Military Service Pensions Act or the regulation under which certain local people are allowed to come up here and consult with the referee and, in some cases, with members of the Pensions Board as to whether certain applicants were right in the statements they made before the board. I understand that these individuals are brought up here officially and I should like to know under what section of the Act or what regulation they are entitled to recover their expenses. I should like to be enlightened on these matters because I am not aware that authority was given to anybody to administer the Military Service Pensions Act except the Service Pensions Board and the officers appointed to assist them by the Minister. In the case of these 78 names sent down seven or eight months ago, the Brigade officers concerned refused to agree with the opinion of the authorities up here. Unless it has been done quite recently, these persons have not been called before the board and have not received notice that their applications have been turned down.

There are many other aspects of the administration of the Military Service Pensions Act which one could deal with at length, but I think it would be useless to do so under present circumstances. I understand that there are three or four sections in the office where these applications are at present lying. In one section there are the applications which have been dealt with, and in respect of which pensions have been granted and are being paid. In another section there are the applications which have been before the board and still await consideration. In another section there is a very large number of applications which have been examined—in a cursory way or otherwise—and respecting which the opinion has been expressed that these people have not made a prima facie case or advanced on paper any justification for consideration of their applications or for their appearance before the board. When will the people whose cases have been turned down and are lying in such large heaps in the Department of Defence be informed that their applications have been rejected? The Government has now, in its own opinion, five years' security of tenure. They have behind them a band of men who will pass anything they are prepared to put before the House. These people to whom I refer should not be compelled to wait longer for intimation from the Pensions Board as to whether their applications have been granted or not, or whether they are to be brought before the board.

It is time that the Ministry made up their minds to be honest in dealing with the majority of the 57,000 applicants and not have Fianna Fáil Deputies, as some of them are doing, passing over the applicants to Labour Deputies or members of the Opposition to listen to their cases and make representations to the Department in support of them. That is the obvious duty of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, who say that nobody but themselves will be listened to in connection with matters of this kind. I invite Fianna Fáil Deputies to take over their responsibilities now and do their duty without further delay. There is no justification for a delay which will involve years in dealing with the remainder of the 57,000 applications. In four years, 5,500 applications have been disposed of out of 57,000. At the present rate of progress it will take 35 years to deal with the remainder of the applications still lying in the office of the Department of Defence. Deputies on the Government Benches have only five years of safety, and I hope they will make up their minds to encourage the Minister to deal with these applications in a more effective way and tell the applicants what their punishment or their pension is to be without further delay.

Mr. Meaney

It was not my intention to speak on this Vote, but I was so impressed by the change of attitude on the Fine Gael Benches in regard to pensions that I thought it only right that I should express my view. During the past year we heard a lot of sneers with regard to Army pensions from the Fine Gael Benches, and I am very pleased to find that their attitude to these pensions has changed this evening. They are all worried and troubled about the delay in the administration of the Act and the delay occasioned to applicants who are compelled to wait until their case is gone through by the Pensions Board, as it is usually called. I agree that there is a long delay, and I regret that such is the case. I am also aware that, owing to the Act not coming into force until 16 years after these applicants had completed their service, it is not to be expected that their cases could be dealt with in a short space of time. I think Deputies opposite must agree that if it was unjust to have a delay from 1934 to 1938, it was far more unjust to have a delay of ten years, from 1924 to 1934, before an opportunity was given of doing some semblance of justice to men who had served their country conscientiously and well and as they thought best.

This Pensions Act was, of course, a good thing, and while I am sure that it is scarcely necessary to do so, I would impress on the Minister the necessity of doing everything possible to facilitate the hearing of pension claims, and also draw his attention to the fact that as the Pensions Act is administered at present, one section of the Irish Republican Army forces are not being dealt with in the manner they deserve. I refer to the ordinary volunteers, the type of men to whom Deputy Morrissey has referred. As matters stand at present, in order to have qualifying service applicants must have taken part in some major engagement, but you have through the country, and particularly in the constituency I represent, a very large number of men who gave yeoman service, particularly at the end of 1920-21.

If these men did not take part in an actual major engagement it was not their fault. I know hundreds of men who during the latter months of 1920 and the early months of 1921, right up to 11th July, spent day and night at the post of duty—smashing railways, cutting enemy communications, trenching roads, demolishing bridges, carrying despatches and guarding the flying columns from arrest, and also guarding the rest of their comrades. If this had not been done, and done efficiently, at that time, those of us who were lucky enough to get service pensions would not have got them, as the fight would never have been won. I appeal strongly to the Minister to take these men into consideration and to give them the same service as was given their comrades who happened to take part in the various fights.

I listened to Deputy Ryan some minutes ago, and the more I heard of him, the more I was convinced that he knew absolutely nothing of the subject on which he was speaking. He made allegations about the Old I.R.A. committees, the parish committees and about this, that and the other thing. I think that the Deputy must have considered that his audience must not be very intelligent. If he knew the least thing about the procedure that obtains in regard to the granting of claims under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, he would not have made some of the statements he did make. He made allegations that parish committees had the granting of pensions. The fact remains that, in brigade areas, you have a brigade committee, set up and recognised by the Pensions Board and composed of men who, beyond yea or nay, had both pre-truce and post-truce service, and who were responsible officers in the Volunteer and I.R.A. forces. When these men are brought before the board they are brought to give evidence in the cases which have preceded them from their respective areas, and in doing so, I can assure you, Sir, and the House, that a man's creed or politics are not taken into account. Men are granted service on the amount of service they gave, and not on whether they were Blueshirts, Green-shirts, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael—or even Labour, as Deputy Kennedy reminds me.

Mr. Corish

There is no necessity to laugh about it, either.

Mr. Meaney

Irresponsible statements like these do not reflect much credit on anybody, and particularly on the people who make them. I ask the Minister to take into account the type of Volunteer I have mentioned, because if he does not get the same rights under the Act as the men who took an actual part in fights, I am afraid the full benefits of the Act will not be distributed as they should be.

Captain Giles

From what I know of the position here and in the country, I am quite satisfied that this whole pension scheme, which no doubt was brought in with the best intentions, has really more or less demoralised the national spirit of this country. I know that pensions were due to many of the claimants. They were needed, but latterly there seems to be nothing in this country but the one idea to grab all, take everything, but give no service. Try and get something for nothing seems to be the idea. To my mind the sooner this pension scheme is got through, finished with, and all the claims decided one way or another the better it will be for the whole country. I am aware that the Pensions Board has a huge task.

When one realises that when the Republican Army was fighting here we could not get 8,000 men in the whole of Ireland to do any sort of work, and when one finds that under the 1934 Act there are 56,000 men applying for pensions and that 3,500 got pensions under the 1924 Act, one can see that out of these 56,000 claimants there can be no more than 5,000 entitled to a pension. In view of these figures any reasonable man must have sympatry with the board.

I think the most pressing need at the present time is for the Old I.R.A. from all sides to come together as honest men and help to weed out bogus claims. In the County Meath we have all parties solidly united with the determination to see that every man in Meath who was entitled to a pension will get that pension, and that every scrounger looking for a pension, without being entitled to it, is going to get short shrift. When we united in County Meath we found that in some districts where there had been only 10 or 11 or 12 men in the old Volunteers, we were presented with lists of 50, 60 and 70 Volunteers in these very places. We called together the old comrades. We went through the names and got them down to what they really should have been. Meath is one of the most hardly treated counties in Ireland as regards pensions. I raised the question here before. I was informed of five men from Meath who were drawing pensions. I got the names of these men and found that not one of them was a Meath man. There were loyal and good men in the ordinary rank and file who were entitled to pensions and they were not even called before the board. Before the election in 1937 rumours were sent round the country that all claimants to pensions were going to be given pensions. That is all these men heard about it. The same thing occurred before the 1938 election. The number of applicants was so great that the claims of honest men could not be reached.

I think now, after the election, when Fianna Fáil have a five years' period in front of them, the time has come when a number of the Truceliers, who destroyed the chances of decent men getting a pension, should be given short shrift. We are all hoping they will. I do believe that the Pensions Board will go into this matter now more quickly. Of course, the old procedure was a very good one for the Fianna Fáil Party, because as long as the cases of these men were undecided the Fianna Fáil Party had a sure hold of them. They kept them in their ranks. But as soon as these men are called before the board and their cases turned down, as they ought to be turned down because they have no claim to a pension, these men will turn against Fianna Fáil and be a thorn in their sides. But Fianna Fáil is now firmly fixed in the saddle and does not give one damn now who is thrown out and who is not thrown out.

I think the time has now come when the old I.R.A. should openly sit up. They should come and see after themselves. They have been let down by the whole country. Men who really did serve in the old I.R.A. are to-day the most down-trodden people in the country. I am speaking of what I know. The men who were the warriors of the Irish people in the Black and Tan fight cannot to-day even get work on the roads from the county councils. There is no one looking after them. The only hope they have is to come up and have a say themselves in the national Government. I think it is a shame that the Irish Governments, past and present, did not do more for the old I.R.A. than they did.

The old I.R.A. men should be planted on the land, given a house and farm and put into the position of earning a decent living. Some of these men got a pension of 6/-, 7/- or 8/- a week. That is of very little use to them. They should be allowed to exchange those pensions and realise £300 or £400, which would give them a chance to make a start in the country. Again, very many of them have gone to Australia, the United States or Canada. They are a national loss. We should have seen to it that these men should have been given land in this country.

From what my colleague, Deputy Jerry Ryan, has said there must be something wrong in the manner in which these pension claims in Tipperary have been dealt with. We have men there drawing pensions of £100 a year who were not entitled to them. In the face of that someone should be made suffer. I do not believe there is an honest man in Tipperary who would stand up and say that any man should get a pension if that man were not entitled to it. In the same way there is no honest man who would be ready to stand up and say that a man who is not entitled to a pension should get it. Daily the ranks of the old I.R.A. are diminishing. Look at the Press any day and you read the death of an old warrior leaving a wife and perhaps five or six children in poor circumstances. Some of these men waited five or six years for pensions which did not reach them. Now the I.R.A. man is gone and his wife and children are left almost destitute. Surely with only about 8,000 men in the whole country entitled to pensions the Minister, now with the old I.R.A. organised as they are, should be able to fire out those 40,000 odd applicants who have no claim at all to pensions. The old I.R.A. will be very proud and happy at seeing the Minister taking his courage in his hands and writing to those 40,000 Truceliers, who have damned the chances of honest men getting a pension, and telling them that they will get no pension. If the Minister takes his courage in his hands and does that he will have earned the respect of the old I.R.A. and the justice which should have been done ten years ago to our old comrades will have been done.

Mr. Moran

During this debate it has been suggested from every side of the House that there had been considerable delay in the administration of the Pensions Act. Deputies should realise that with the large number of claims to be dealt with there is bound to be delay. If Deputies will compare the length of time it took the courts in this country to deal with claims under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, they will be given some idea of the amount of work that the pension claims entail. Now under the Damage to Property Act every court in the country was constituted as a court for hearing the claims. Under this Act you have only one Board, so it is quite natural that there must be a large amount of delay.

There is one particular type of claimant that I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is that of the man who time and again volunteered for active service and was prepared to go on active service but, for various reasons, was not called upon to do so. Perhaps there was not sufficient equipment in the particular column and the man was not given his chance to give the service that he was prepared to give. Active service is not defined in the Act. Now I say that it is unfair that men should be brought up long distances before the board here in Dublin if there is not a probability that they have a good claim. This is a heavy expense on the claimants. I think, if possible, the Pensions Board should go down to each particular area. It should sit at least in each county so that those claims could be dealt with expeditiously on the spot. If the board were to sit in each county in the State I think the work could be got through more quickly and, in addition, these poor people should not be put to the expense of having to travel to Dublin. That is an expense they can badly afford. Sometimes men are brought up here and then it is found that they do not qualify for a pension.

There is another type of applicant under this Act which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I refer to claimants who are now living in the United States, Canada and Australia. These men, if they were here, could qualify for a pension but being away they have great difficulty in getting their claims through. I suggest that there should be some procedure whereby a board might be set up in the State in which they live, or our Consulates in those countries could be used for the purpose of taking evidence to prove their claims. Numbers of these men would qualify for a pension if their claims could only be heard. Quite a number of them are in the United States owing to their health, and I think those are people who should be dealt with first, if possible—certainly, I think their claims should have priority over the others. I suggest that the Minister should establish some means by which such people could have their claims heard and dealt with over there.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Moran has raised the question of both disability and service pension-applicants in the United States, and he says that some machinery should be set up there to deal with their cases. Well, machinery has been set up already to deal with such cases; and a very large number of service pensions have been issued to men who are in the United States. The same applies to disability pensions also. In the case of disability, we get doctors over there to examine the applicants; these doctors furnish a certificate and, on the acceptance of the certificate by the people here, these men get their disability pensions. Deputy Moran raised another point that was raised by some other Deputies, and that is that the Military Service Pensions Board should go down the country. Well, I am satisfied, at any rate, that the board and the referee can work very much more expeditiously in Dublin. They have their staff there, note-takers and so on, and it would be very difficult indeed to shift these people around the country and find suitable accommodation for them. I think it is much better in every way that they should be left where they are and allowed to get on with their work.

A number of speakers here complained about one portion of the work being put on the local people, and at the same time they complained about the slowness in letting people know whether or not they were entitled to a pension. I may inform those Deputies that, almost a year ago, the referee and the board sent out two lists to all the local brigade committees, and on those lists—at the moment I do not know whether it was (a) list or (b) list—they said, in effect: "It appears to us, from a look at the forms, that those on list (a) are not entitled to a pension at all, and that those on list (b) are very doubtful cases"—and they asked the assistance of the committee in stating whether or not that was so. With regard to one list, the applicants made no case at all, and it was the intention of the referee and the board to put these people out of pain by saying: "You have not made any case, and it seems to us that you are not entitled to a pension." They were going to give these people that warning, but the local committees would not take the responsibility of saying: "Well, that is so," or even of disagreeing. They were not asked to pass final judgment upon the matter at all. They were simply asked. "Is this, roughly, the case, or have you any objections with regard to those on the list who have been notified that they have not made a case?"

Mr. Davin

But would it not make them very unpopular locally, if they did that?

Mr. Aiken

I know, but the referee is not all-knowing. He has to get information and evidence from somebody or another, and in these particular cases the applicants did not state, even on paper, that they were entitled to claim. They made no claim at all for service, and the referee wanted to notify them that such was the case. I think it was a wrong policy of the local brigade committees to refuse to pass on those (a) and (b) lists. However, I suppose it is one of these things that cannot be cured, and we have got to take the inconveniences that go with the carrying out of our duty. One of these inconveniences is that it is going to take a bit longer to get the job finished.

I think it was Deputy Davin who alluded to the (a) and (b) lists and asked for the legal authority. Well, the referee is entitled to get whatever assistance he can, and that was one way in which he sought assistance from the local people. Deputy Davin also asked for the legal authority for paying expenses of verifying officers who came to town to verify for applicants. Again, the referee is entitled to call witnesses to certify or disprove claims that have been made, and if the Deputy looks up the Estimate I think he will see that that is a sum that is probably vouched for. Deputy Morrissey wanted the Act extended so as to provide for those who had civil war service only. Well, the Act of 1924 did not provide pensions for those who had civil war service only, and neither did the Act of 1934. Certainly I have not the slightest intention of introducing an Act to provide for that service alone.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Norton and others asked how long it is going to take to clear up the whole matter of the military service pensions cases, and also asked about the deferred cases. I have not got the figures Deputy Davin asked for as to what proportion of those whose cases were heard during the last 12 months were deferred, but we can get them later on. The fact of the matter is that the referee and the board have a terrifically difficult job to do, and, as I explained in my opening statement, it is 17 years after the event and that makes it all the more difficult to get proper verification and get through the job. The board and the referee, however, are doing their utmost. Roughly, they have dealt with and passed awards on 5,881 claims, and they have heard a large number of thousands of others. Notwithstanding anything that you may do, however, it is difficult to speed up the cases in order to make awards quickly, but the board and the referee are doing their utmost and I think that another couple of years should see the matter completely cleaned up, particularly if we can get the co-operation from the local people that we are entitled to expect.

Some people condemn the local committees, but without them we could not do the work. We have to have somebody who will verify for service, and the referee simply asked the local old I.R.A. men to agree on somebody who could talk for them. There was no other way of doing the business. Deputy O'Higgins asked in what order the cases are heard. The referee and the board try to hear the cases that are really entitled to pensions—that is, those who have made a good case for pensions—and they have also asked the opinion of the local brigade committees in that regard and asked them to send a list of the best cases in their areas which they thought might be heard.

Every effort is being made to deal first with those who have really good, clear cases for pensions. I think it is the best order in which to proceed.

Deputy O'Higgins alluded to the appointment of some official called "The Soldier's Friend." He based his case for the appointment of such an official on the grounds that all the correspondence with regard to pensions was dealt with by finance officials in the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence, of course, have to look after the public purse in regard to pensions and so on, but they also have the duty of looking after the rights of those who have claims under the various pensions schemes. If correspondence comes in showing that a man is entitled to some sort of pension, his claim is not turned down because he has made his application under the wrong Act; he is told under what Act to apply. Again, it is a wrong impression to give that any of the Disability or other Service Acts are being dealt with by what you might call "dyed-in-wool civil servants." If you take the Service Act, the referee is not a civil servant. He was set up there specially by the Government to give every applicant a fair crack of the whip. He is assisted by two men who are not civil servants. If you take the case of the Wounds and Disability Act, you have there three men on the Registration Board and three men on the Wounds and Disability Board who are not civil servants, and who are administering those Acts. I do not see any case in the world for the appointment of any such official as Deputy O'Higgins calls for.

Deputy O'Higgins and others raised certain cases where pensions had been wrongly awarded. Deputy O'Higgins said that as far as he is aware somebody sent in a letter to the Department of Defence 12 months ago making an allegation that an award was wrongly made. That letter may have come in; I do not know. I have no recollection of seeing it, but if the Deputy gives me the name and address of the person concerned I will have the case looked up. The Department of Defence is more concerned than anybody else could possibly be to prevent fraud, because if in any district one applicant who is not entitled to a pension gets his case through it causes a considerable lot of trouble. If any Deputy can help to prevent fraud in regard to any of the pension cases we would be very grateful indeed. I have power as Minister for Defence to reopen any case where a prima facie case is made to me that fraud has been practised. There is no use in people coming along, as Deputy Ryan and Deputy O'Higgins have done, and making an allegation here that they can give evidence. They can do the devil and all when they are here in the Dáil at the time of the Estimates debate, but that is not the time to do it. If they have any evidence which will enable us to detect fraud, the time to give it is during the year and through the ordinary channels.

I should like to refer to just one other matter which I think will clear up a lot of the points made. Deputy O'Higgins and others talked of commuting small pensions, and said that he wondered why the precedent which was established under the Wounds and Disability Act, 1924, was not applied to the Service Pensions Act of 1934. Neither was it applied to the Service Pensions Act of 1924. For some reason or other there seems to be general disapproval of commuting even the small pensions. It is a matter which can be examined again to see whether there is the same objection to it now as there was in the past. I remember raising that question once, and for some reason or another everybody seemed to be against it. However, I will have that matter examined again. From the Departmental point of view it would be preferable to take a lot of the small pensions off the list, but I think the old argument against it is that if you start commuting pensions the people to whom you have given lump sums will be back on your doorstep; it often holds. There may be something to be said for commuting the very small ones.

Mr. Cosgrave

Might I ask the Minister a question? Is there any prospect of considering claims in respect of 1916 service in priority? There is also another point which I want to put to the Minister in regard to "The Soldier's Friend". I raised that question a couple of months ago, and advisedly, because I had experience of the necessity for it myself.

Mr. Aiken

As I say, I am not at all convinced about the necessity for "The Soldier's Friend". Setting one up, in my opinion, would be simply sending the fool further and encouraging people who have no case under the Acts. In regard to the 1916 men, Deputy Peadar Doyle also raised that matter. As far as I am aware, the referee and the board are doing their utmost to clear up the 1916 cases, and I think there are very few of those cases left outstanding. If any are left I will be glad to hear of them, and will bring them to the attention of the referee.

Mr. Cosgrave

Some of them have only been dealt with recently after five years.

Mr. Aiken

Difficulties sometimes crop up, but as I say, I think they are all either dealt with or in a fair way to being dealt with. If any cases are outstanding I will bring them to the attention of the referee.

Mr. Cosgrave

If I give the Minister three cases, which are all I can remember at the moment in conection with "The Soldier's Friend," will he have the matter looked into?

Mr. Aiken

Well, I do not know.

Vote put and agreed to.