I move that the Bill be received for final consideration.
Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Bill, 1938—Report and Final Stages.
Is the Minister prepared to make the statement that was promised on behalf of the Department of Defence by the Taoiseach?
On the Second Reading, Deputy O'Higgins made a case for the giving of pensions to widows of officers who died between 1922 and 1932 in the service from causes other than wounds. He based his case on the assumption that similar types of cases were covered under the present regulations. As a matter of fact, under the present regulations an officer would require to have 12 years' service before his widow would be entitled to a pension, if he died from causes other than wounds, and a mere extension of the Act or the regulations to cover cases back to 1922 would have no effect in granting pensions to those widows because in no case had their husbands the 12 years required under the present regulations. Accordingly, making the Bill retrospective to 1922 would not have the effect that the Deputy desires it to have. Now, if we were going to deal with such cases the regulations would have to be amended, and the Act would have to be amended, making regulations retrospective to 1922. The question of amending the present regulations is under consideration at the moment, and I am not in a position yet to say whether or not such amendment would cover the case of widows and orphans where the service was shorter than 12 years.
I was more or less aware of the fact that the present Bill could not be extended so as to include the cases to which I referred, but it appears to me that, whether it is the fault of the regulations or the fault of the scheme or the fault of the Department, the position at the moment is that the widow of a soldier or officer who died subsequent to 1932 will receive a pension, but the widow of a soldier or officer who died prior to 1932 will not receive a pension. It may be that that is the fault of the scheme or the fault of the Bill or the fault of the Department, but it certainly is not the fault of the corpse or the fault of the widow of the corpse, and I do believe that the widows of those who died before a certain date are as much entitled to treatment as the widows of those who died after a certain date. The question I put to the Taoiseach, when he was in charge, was whether he would look into the matter and introduce legislation to cover the cases of those who had died prior to 1932. From a reply I got from the Minister during the week to a question of mine, I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that no consideration is being given to the widows of those who died before a certain date. My question asked for a mere numerical return of the number of officers, N.C.O.s and privates, who died from causes other than wounds and other than disease acquired prior to the establishment of the forces, and who died between October, 1923, and the date of this Bill in 1932. The reply I got was to the effect that the Minister could not give such information, that it was not available. If such information is not available, then their responsibilities are being taken very lightly with regard to those who are past and gone. It is quite clear that every case sheet that is written up in a hospital shows how, when, and where the disability was acquired, and it was purely a case of consulting the records of the Department concerned in order to get a reply to that query of mine. No reply was given. If it was too much labour to look up the numbers, then I am not surprised if it is too much labour to make provision for the widows.
The Minister to conclude.
Before the Minister concludes, Sir, perhaps he would answer this question. He said, at the conclusion of his observations, that he had in contemplation the revision of the regulations with a view to making pensions available to the widows of men who had less than 12 years' service, if it were possible to do so. In the event of the regulations being so amended, will the amendment be retrospective back to 1922?
As I said already, that whole matter is under consideration, and I shall not go further into the matter at the moment. Now, with regard to what Deputy O'Higgins said, his allegation was that no consideration was given to the widows of those who died between 1922 and 1932, and he brought forward as evidence my reply to a question of last week. I want to point out to him that my recollection of the reply is that I said I was not now in a position to give the numbers of officers who died from causes other than wounds or disease arising out of active service prior to 1923. On the day the question was due for reply, the officials of my Department informed me that they were not then in a position to supply that information, and I said: "If you have the numbers, give them, and if the Deputy wants more than that, we can get the other information for him." It is quite obvious to me, however, that what the Deputy wanted an answer to his question for was for the debate of last week. I gave him the numbers—that is, the total numbers—and it would have required more notice to give the full particulars the Deputy required. We gave him the particulars that we had available, and that required some work to be done. Now, the Deputy is trying to make the case here that I was in some way at fault in not dealing with these cases from 1922 to 1932, but he is perfectly aware that in 1932 a scheme was agreed to which left them out, just the same as the present regulations do; and this is the first time that a case is being made for them. As a matter of fact, under the regulations agreed to before I became Minister for Defence, widows were not mentioned at all—good, bad or indifferent, Even in the present, officers' widows would not have got the pensions to which they are entitled under the present regulations.
What does the Minister mean when he speaks of the scheme agreed to? It was never before the Dáil.
I simply mean the scheme that was agreed to by the last Administration—the scheme that I found officially agreed to on the files of my Department.
The Minister might find other things on his file. There were also in the files of his Department schemes that did make provision. None of them, in fact, were agreed to. There are schemes on his files making ample provision for every widow since 1922.
That is not so.
It may not have been called to the Minister's attention.
I am talking definitely of the scheme that was agreed to and that made no provision.
Agreed to by whom?
Officially, between Defence and Finance. I again wish to repeat that the matter is having consideration at the moment, and I am not in a position to give any further answer to the question.