asked the Minister for Defence whether he received from Mr. Joseph Reynolds, 47 Donnellan Avenue, Dublin (a) an application for a military service pension on January 21st, 1935; (b) an application for a disability pension on November 30th, 1937; whether, in respect of the first-mentioned application, Mr. Reynolds was summoned to attend before the board on November 1st, 1937, and in respect of the second application he was requested on January 3rd, 1938, to furnish particulars; and, whether, having regard to the fact that no decision has been communicated to Mr. Reynolds up to the present, he will state the reason for the long delay in dealing with the applications and the approximate date on which a decision will be communicated to him.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Military Service Pension Claim.
I have received an application for a military service pension from Mr. Joseph Reynolds, 47 Donnellan Avenue, Dublin. Mr. Reynolds was examined by the advisory committee on the 1st November, 1937, but I have not yet received the referee's report on the claim. I have also received a claim from Mr. Reynolds under the Army Pensions Act, 1937, and I have referred it to the Military Service Registration Board. The board are still considering the claim and they have not yet reported to me the result of their investigations. I am not yet in a position to state the approximate dates when decisions will be communicated to Mr. Reynolds on the respective claims. Owing to the nature and extent of the investigations necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Acts, delay is unavoidable in dealing with the claim.
In view of the fact that this applicant was examined by both boards as long ago as 13 and 15 months respectively, does the Minister consider it impossible to satisfy the requirements of the Act within so long a period as that? Is it not possible to expedite a decision in a case where a man has been definitely examined and interviewed by the board as long ago as 15 months?
It all depends on the case. In some cases the applicants are interviewed and the cases can be dealt with at once. Those are clear cases. In other cases it is not possible to do that.
This case is not likely to change in the future. Whatever facts are available are there; there is no likelihood of any change of circumstances. Can the Minister come to a decision, and arrange that the decision be communicated to Mr. Reynolds, on the information which is at present available?
As the Deputy is aware, even though the facts do not change the existence of the facts is sometimes apparent, and at other times it is not. If the referee gets evidence that the facts of the case warrant the granting of a pension, there is no undue delay. If evidence is not brought forward in that way, what can we do?
Might I remind the Minister that this application was in four years on the 31st of last month. In that period surely there was a reasonable time in which to ascertain whether the facts were available or whether they could be confirmed. In view of the fact that Mr. Reynolds was examined so long ago by both boards, would the Minister endeavour to expedite a decision in the case?
I am perfectly satisfied that both boards are doing their utmost.
Mr. Reynolds cannot see it in cash.
He may not see it at all.
The Minister ought not to be always disorderly in his interruptions, and unmannerly as well.