Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1938

Vol. 73 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Acting Minister for Defence (The Taoiseach)

The Act, of which this is an amendment, was passed on the 16th December, 1932, and empowered the Minister for Defence to draw up a scheme of pensions and gratuities for officers, other ranks, and the nursing services of the Army. The scheme made under the Act was approved by the Dáil on the 27th October, 1937. In the interval a number of cases occurred which the Order made in the scheme, immediately after the passing of the Act, would have covered. The Bill now before the House is intended to cover these cases. For example, the Act and the scheme enabled pensions to be granted to officers of the forces who were transferred to the Gárda Síochána, and who held posts in the Gárda on the passing of the Act; that was on the 16th December, 1932. After the passing of the Act, and before approval of the scheme on the 27th October, 1937, one officer with 13 years pensionable service in the Defence Forces was, in the interest of the public service, transferred on the 15th July, 1936, to the Gárda Síochána, and was not, therefore, entitled to any pension for his services in the forces. To remedy this defect, Section 2 (a) of the Bill has been introduced. It is to meet the case of an officer who was transferred, in the public interest, in the interval between the passing of the Act and the making of the Order, to the Gárda Síochána.

Again, the scheme provides pensions for the widows of officers who died while serving after the appointed day, 27th of October, 1937. In four cases officers died while serving in the Forces before the appointed day and after the date of the passing of the Act. Their widows were not, therefore, entitled to pensions under the scheme. Section 2 (b) is intended to remedy that defect. Deputies who look at it will see the cases referred to are covered by 2 (b).

Again, in one case an officer resigned his commission on the 11th January, 1935, and died the following day. As, therefore, he did not die while serving on or after the appointed day, his widow was not entitled to any pension. Section 2 (c) deals with this case and now the widow is entitled to a pension or will be if this Bill is passed.

Those are the six cases in Sections 2 and 3.

Section 5 of the Principal Act gives the Minister power to amend previous schemes, schemes that are made and have been made already, but it appears that any amendment of any scheme could only operate from the date of the resolution approving of the scheme so that any amendment could not have retrospective effect. Section 4 of the Bill remedies this defect and allows the Minister to give retrospective effect to any amendment.

Article 36 of the scheme vests in the Minister an absolute discretion in the granting or refusal of pensions. Doubt has arisen as to whether this article of the scheme is ultra vires in that no such discretion is vested in the Minister by the Principal Act. Section 5 of the Bill removes this doubt.

I might add that the five widows for whom the Bill provides pensions have already received gratuities under Regulations made in accordance with the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts. The gratuities so paid vary from £441 to £911. Section 3 of the Principal Act empowers the Minister to condition the grant of pensions and the scheme which will eventually implement the present Bill will provide for the recovery of any gratuities so paid from the grant of pension. This recovery will take from five to eleven years, so that the present Bill does not involve any immediate commitment on public funds.

I recommend the Second Reading to the House.

Dr. O'Higgins

There is no objection from this side of the House to this particular Bill in so far as, quite evidently, it makes provision for hard cases that were unfortunately not provided for on account of the delay between the Bill and Regulation. This Bill makes provision for five specific cases, probably five cases that are of the type that should come in under the Regulation but I want to take this opportunity to remind the Taoiseach that there is a considerable number of cases of men who died prior to 1932 while serving with the Forces and who are not covered by any Bill whatsoever. The previous Pensions Bill to provide a pension for a widow where the officer or soldier died only made provision for such widow if the disease from which the officer or soldier died was acquired prior to October, 1924. If the disease was acquired at any later date and the officer or soldier died before 1932 then they are not covered by any regulation or any Bill. There was a number of officers and soldiers who died between October, 1924, and October, 1932. They are covered by no Bill and that was the deliberate policy of the Department of Defence and approved and agreed to by the Army representatives.

The Taoiseach

What was that— that it should be granted?

Dr. O'Higgins

That the Act which pensioned disabilities would only apply to disease acquired prior to 1924, the date of establishing the forces. That was agreed to by all on the grounds that, if all those cases were covered partially by that Bill, there would never be an Army Pensions Bill, and the agreement was that such cases were to be covered when a regular Pensions Bill was produced for the Army. It so happened that continuity was lost and there are, for eight years, soldiers and officers uncovered by any Bill or regulation in the event of their death. There is a list in existence in the Department of Defence showing every officer and soldier who died between those dates.

If we are to make special provision for officers and soldiers who died subsequent to 1932, there is an urgent case for making provision for the widows of those who died between 1924 and 1932 and, if there is to be any normal order of priority, such officers and soldiers should have come first. The fact that there is a new Administration since 1932 is no justification for forgetting or overlooking the widow of the officer or soldier who died prior to 1932. I do not know whether this Bill provides for amendment so as to cover cases that were not dealt with in the previous Bill. In fact, I take it that it would be impossible to do it in this Bill.

I am offering no opposition to this Bill, quite the contrary; I welcome it, but I am merely utilising this Bill in order to call attention to cases on a par with the cases covered here, with this difference, that the widows and children have been seven or eight years longer in want and destitution. I would like to get an assurance from the Taoiseach that, without any further delay, the cases I refer to will be covered in some other Bill, or either extending that pensions scheme backwards to cover retrospectively deaths that occurred so many years before. The fact of the matter is that between 1924 and 1932 officers and soldiers were dying from illness. If that illness was not acquired on Army service prior to the date of the establishment of the forces, there was no way of giving them a pension. There is no way at the moment, and medical officers had got to sit by the bedside of the dying officer and, as the Taoiseach knows, the very minute you rid a patient of hope of living you kill that patient.

Our position was that we had to watch at the bedside until we felt certain that that man was going to die, and then we had to say to him: "You will never see to-morrow, and, if you are a serving officer, when you die to-night there is nothing for your widow. Sign that bit of paper and resign, and, if you resign, there is a year's pay for your wife, who will be a widow to-morrow."

It was a very hard position to put any doctor in, but it had to be done in order to get one year's pay for the widow, because there was no provision made to pension her. There was a form of promise from the Executive Council and the Department of Finance that whenever an Army pension scheme would be introduced, all such cases would be covered. They were omitted from the pension scheme. There is a new Bill now to cover cases that arose since. I am merely urging, and I think I am pushing an open door in urging, that similar cases that occurred in the same Army in similar circumstances prior to 1932 will get the same treatment as those are getting who died subsequent to 1932.

The Taoiseach

I have listened carefully to the case made by Deputy O'Higgins. Unfortunately, I am not in the possession of information that would enable me to know what would be the number of cases that might be covered. I do not know if such a promise was, in fact, made, or if there is any record of any such promise by a previous Executive Council.

Dr. O'Higgins

I do not believe that there would be a record. It was in Committee, and it was purely a verbal agreement made in Committee. There was a Joint Committee representing the Army, Finance and Defence, to draft that disability pension Bill. Deliberately we anchored that back prior to 1924, on the understanding that if there was a regular Army Pensions Bill all such cases would be covered.

The Taoiseach

I do not know whether, when previous Bills were discussed here—for instance, in connection with the Principal Act of 1932— that matter was pointed out at the time. The Deputy will appreciate that I shall have to look into all those matters before I can form a definite judgment as to the full merits of the case he has put forward. It does seem from what the Deputy has said that there is a gap which has to be examined. I promise I shall have it examined and, when we come to the Committee Stage, I hope to be able to tell him what is the attitude of the Government in the matter. I do not think I can do anything further at the moment.

I should like to say also that a short while before I came into the House there was a case brought to my attention of another officer who died while serving and who left a widow. It happened within the period that we are dealing with in this Bill, but it is of somewhat a different character from those which we have here. I told the Deputy who brought it to my notice that I would have it examined, and if it came within the terms of the Bill or was a case the Government thought should be dealt with, that I would examine it and, if it were possible to deal with it under this Bill, I would do it by way of an amendment; if it was decided it was right that it should be dealt with, every effort would be made to deal adequately with it. It occurred to me in that connection that possibly that particular case could be dealt with under the powers given here to the Minister to amend a scheme and to amend it retrospectively to a certain extent. I suppose I may take it that there is no opposition from any part of the House to this Bill?

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time; Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 16th November.