Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Apr 1940

Vol. 79 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £389,060 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, 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, Liúntaisí 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 £389,060 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, 1941, 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, £583,590, required for the service of this Vote during the financial year 1940-41, may be roughly divided into the following categories of expenditure:—cost of administration, £19,912; incidental expenses, £4,882; cost of awards, £558,796; total: £583,590.

The cost of administration borne on this Vote is shown as follows:—

Army Pensions Board (sub-heads A and B), £2,975; Military Service Registration Board (sub-heads C and D), £3,841; Reference and Advisory Committee (sub-heads E and F), £13,096; total: £19,912.

The incidental expenses are:—surgical and medical appliances (sub-head I), £300; hospital treatment (sub-head J), £1,250; expenses of applicants (sub-head M), £2,600; other expenses (sub-head N and H), £732; total: £4,882.

The main service of the Vote, the award of pensions, allowances and gratuities, is distributed over five sub-heads according as the service relates to:—(a) disability pensions and gratuities under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923-1937 (sub-head G); (b) allowances and gratuities under the same Acts (sub-head H); (c) service pensions under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924-1934 (sub-head K); (d) pensions and gratuities under the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme, 1937 (sub-head L); (e) pensions and allowances under the Connaught Rangers Pensions Act, 1936 (sub-head C).

The total statutory liability under those various Acts is estimated to cost £558,796 during the financial year, but in order to appreciate the significance of those figures it is necessary to distinguish between:—(a) awards actually under payment, (b) awards that may be made during the financial year, (c) the arrears of pensions inherent in some of the awards that may be made during the year, (d) non-recurring awards, such as gratuities.

The awards actually under payment as provided in the Estimate in accordance with Statutes passed by the Oireachtas are:—(a) 423 pensions under the 1923 Act costing £24,362; (b) 120 allowances under the 1923 Act costing £5,822; (c) 115 pensions under the 1927 Act costing £11,400; (d) 88 allowances under the 1927 Act costing £2,846; (e) 443 pensions under the 1932 Act costing £42,516; (f) 167 allowances under the 1932 Act costing £5,841; (g) 105 pensions under the 1937 Act costing £6,495; (h) 28 allowances under the 1937 Act costing £2,990; (i) 3,172 pensions under the 1924 Act costing £151,725; (j) 6,735 pensions under the 1934 Act costing £206,214; (k) 30 pensions under the 1932 Act (Retired Pay) costing £1,620; (l) 38 pensions under the 1936 Act (Connaught Rangers) costing £1,156; Total: 11,464 awards under eight Acts costing £462,987.

In addition to those 11,464 awards costing £462,987, the Estimate provides for new awards as follows: (a) 5 pensions under 1923-27 Acts costing £130; (b) 47 pensions under the 1932 Act costing £3,890; (c) 9 allowances under the 1932 Act costing £311; (d) 37 pensions under the 1937 Act costing £1,556; (e) 60 allowances under the 1937 Act costing £750; (f) 6 pensions under the 1924 Act costing £600; (g) 768 pensions under the 1934 Act costing £19,200; (h) 7 pensions under the 1932 Act (Retired Pay) costing £423; total: 939 awards under 8 Acts costing £26,860.

Certain of the 939 awards carry, however, with them arrears of pensions, and the arrears for which the Estimate provides are:—under the 1932 Act, for pensions £11,600; under the 1932 Act, for allowances £880; under the 1937 Act, for pensions £1,134; under the 1937 Act, for allowances £2,125; under the 1934 Act, for pensions £91,988; total arrears: £107,727.

This £107,727 is, of course, non-recurring. Another non-recurring item included in the Estimate is the award of gratuities as distinct from pensions or allowances, and the gratuities provided for are:—Under the 1937 Act, £1,140; under the 1927 Act, £90; under the 1932 Act, £325; under the 1932 Act (Retired Pay), £900; total: £2,455.

The cost of the main service of the Vote, the cost of awards, is, therefore, briefly: awards under payment, £462,987; new awards, £26,860; arrears following new awards, £107,727, and gratuities, £2,455 a total of £600,029 It will thus be seen that of the total £600,029, no less than the sum of £110,182 is a non-recurring liability. From this sum of £600,029, there have to be made deductions in respect of deaths, and abatements under Section 8 of the 1924 Act, Section 20 of the 1934 Act and Section 15 (1) of the 1932 Act (retired pay) in respect of pensioners being in receipt of remuneration, other pensions or allowances payable out of public moneys. On foot of such abatements, a sum of £36,709 is estimated to be saved and another sum of £4,524 is expected not to fall for payment owing to casualties during the year. Hence from the £600,029, we deduct £41,233 and get, as the net cost of awards, the sum of £558,796, of which £448,614 may be regarded as a recurring item of annual expenditure.

The work of the three statutory boards which are administering the various Acts is proceeding satisfactorily. The Military Service Registration Board has dealt with over 6,500 applications for service certificates under the Disability Acts, and on March 31st, there were only about 150 cases outstanding. The work of this board on at least a full-time basis should, therefore, be completed within the near future. The Army Pensions Board has practically completed its work on the 1932 Act proper, but has yet to deal with about 650 cases which are either proper to the 1937 Act itself, or fall under the Acts of 1923, 1927 and 1932 as amended or extended by the 1937 Act. The end of the present financial year should see the most of these cases disposed of.

As regards applications for service certificates under the 1934 Act, the referee had issued, on 31st March, 7,039 favourable reports qualifying for pensions and had confirmed 28,659 unfavourable reports by the advisory committee in respect of persons who prima facie were not likely to come within the scope of the Act. In the case of all such persons allowance must be made for appeals, but it is anticipated that all reports, whether favourable or unfavourable, will be finally completed within a period of about three years.

Mr. Davin

How many cases are deferred?

Mr. Traynor

I could not state the actual number, but 7,039 favourable and 28,659 unfavourable reports have been sent out. There might be anything between one-third and one-half of the remainder deferred.

Mr. Davin

How many are on appeal?

Mr. Norton

Could the Minister say how many appeals he got in the 28,000 odd cases?

Mr. Traynor

About one-third.

Mr. Cosgrave

That makes almost 36,000 cases. Are there any not yet heard?

Mr. Traynor

A large number still have to be heard.

Mr. Cosgrave

How many?

Mr. Traynor

I could not give accurate figures.

Mr. Norton

Would they amount to over 25,000?

Mr. Traynor

Roughly 19,000 cases have yet to be heard.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister, except for the last few minutes, gave us pretty much the same information as we have in the Estimate. There were very slight alterations in it. The fact of the matter is that this service is costing about £20,000 to administer, and we got no information from the Minister as to the number of cases considered and decided last year. If we are to take the Estimate as it stands as an indication of what the number is, we have, in connection with the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, about 984 cases decided. It amounts to this, that this £20,000 institution is deciding approximately four cases a day, allowing for something under 300 days in the year. Taking the figures as the Minister has given them to us, they have passed 7,039 cases and they have rejected 28,000. To take the average, they reject approximately 16 cases for every four cases that they admit. It is not a very hard day's work, considering the £20,000 a year.

The next point that is of interest in connection with this business is that we have now admitted 7,000 persons under the Act of 1934. I presume that we might generally classify that particular lot as being men who were in arms against the first Government here. If we look up the number of those who were in the National Army and who were dealt with under another Military Service Pensions Act, we find that number to be a little over 3,000. It will be seen from the figures given that the number of persons who are drawing pensions and who fought against the State are far more than twice the number of those who defended the State in its early years. My information about that particular period of our history is that the two classes were fairly well divided, so this expensive military service board must be taking another viewpoint on that matter.

We have 7,000 already admitted, 19,000 to be considered, and there are appeals in at least 9,000 cases. There is a considerable amount of speculation as to what number out of the 9,000 under appeal and the 19,000 yet to be considered will be passed, but on the figures as they stand, assuming we are to take the 19,000 on the same average and that one in every five qualifies for a pension, we will have 4,000 more on the 19,000. Taking in connection with the 9,000 only one in every nine, we would then have another 1,000, and that would be 12,000 persons getting pensions in respect of that particular period. That is being done at a cost of £20,000 annually to the people of this country.

The Minister says that the whole business will be completed inside the next three years. What is the number that has to be passed in any particular year? Can we get beyond 1,000 admissions and 4,000 rejections? Maybe the Minister is a year out in his calculations, and let us take it that it will be four years before this will be discontinued. The whole thing has very little to commend it and the Minister must be aware of that fact when he did not tell us how many cases were dealt with last year, how many were passed, how many were rejected and how quickly he expected the 19,000 to be dealt with. They are going to do them at the rate of 6,000 a year and at the same time settle the appeals. The whole thing is not very creditable for the Minister. The administrative costs are colossal.

As regards the figures that have been given to us by the Minister, they differ very slightly but not very materially with the figures in the book. We find that the sum paid in respect of this service in 1936-37, according to the published figures, was £439,000. This year the sum is approximately £589,000— £588,000 is the correct figure, but there are some odd hundreds and I make a present of them to the Minister. The increased cost of this particular service for a period of three years, from 1936-37, was £150,000, or £50,000 a year. That sum represents the awards that have been made, the gratuities that have been paid, the expenses that have been incurred, and it includes the cost of administration, which is approximately £20,000 a year. It is quite true there have been a great many rejections, but the cost of the administration is colossal.

Mr. Traynor

On a point of correction, I think the Deputy is quoting now for the Referee and the Advisory Committee. The figure I gave was £13,096. I want to make the correction in case the Deputy deals further with that figure.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am adding up the cost of the whole service, the whole administrative cost arising out of Army pensions, the cost which is covered by the Army Pensions Board, the Military Service Registration Board, the Referee and the Advisory Committee, the incidental expenses and the expenses of applicants and witnesses attending for examination. The whole sum amounts to approximately £20,000.

Mr. Traynor

I beg the Deputy's pardon.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to know what outside business would do things in this fashion? The Department has a Minister, a co-ordinating Minister, and a Parliamentary Secretary. Would it be possible to add to the extravagant cost that there is involved in connection with this Ministry and its administration? I do not think it would.

Mr. Norton

Much of the information which the Minister gave us was conveyed in the published Estimates already in the possession of Deputies. It would have been much more informative if the Minister told us what these various boards did during the past year as compared with the preceeding year, so that we might get some idea as to the tempo of progress, if progress is not an inapplicable word to use in relation to the board which functions under this Vote. The over-riding consideration which is forced upon me is that in 1934 we passed what might now be regarded as the main Pension Act extant, and under that Act approximately 55,000 applications were submitted for pensions. Perhaps the figure might be as great as 59,000.

During the last six years we have had a number of boards examining all these claims. After six years' activity we are now told by the Minister that the various boards have issued favourable reports in approximately 7,000 cases and they have confirmed 28,000 unfavourable reports. If that were the end of the matter one would say with a sigh of relief: "Thank heaven that expenditure is over and we can now see the end of those Army Pension Boards and Army Registration Boards in sight."

The Minister told us this evening that they have yet to deal with approximately 19,500 cases and we may expect appeals in approximately 9,000 of the 28,000 cases which have been rejected. The country has to face the position that there are still 19,000 applications to be considered de novo and there are 9,000 applications to be considered on appeal. It seems to me that the Minister is unduly optimistic if he imagines that, with the number of cases to be dealt with, these registration boards are going to exterminate themselves at the end of three years, judging by the leisurely progress which they have made during the past six years.

One cannot go to any area in the country without receiving widespread complaints of delay in dealing with pension cases. Next to the Land Commission, probably the worst Department in the world to write to is the Department of Defence, if the complaint has got anything to do with an application for a military service pension or a disability pension. Applicants merely get a printed acknowledgment, and there seems to be no limit to the number of these which the pensions boards are prepared to issue. In the case of individual applications, if a Deputy writes urging special consideration because of the distressing circumstances connected with it, one in which the applicant is manifestly entitled to a pension, the Deputy merely gets a stereotyped reply that a child might write or issue. If we are going to have a further 28,000 claims to be dealt with, it seems to me that on this day five years we will have some Minister for Defence telling this House that, owing to some unforeseen circumstances, the pensions boards are still functioning. One hears nothing but complaint about the slothful manner in which these applications for pensions are being dealt with.

There seems to be some rather unusual way of dealing with applications. I have had experience of some cases from my own constituency. In one area you may find a little nest of people whose claims have been dealt with and pensions granted, while over the rest of the county you meet people who cannot get their applications heard at all. In other cases I have received complaints from my own constituency and elsewhere concerning persons who were before the pensions board for examination two and three years ago and who have not yet received any decision on their claims. Before the last general election, and the previous general election, quite a considerable number of people were invited to go before the pensions board for examination, but when the elections were over, and conveniently forgotten, many of them who thought, because of the elections, that they were sure to get a pension are still without pensions, notwithstanding their apparent temporary usefulness at the time to the Government. Will the Minister say if he intends to put any limit to the period of time which is going to be spent in the consideration of these claims? Many of the applicants would prefer to know definitely where they stand. They would prefer to be told definitely that they were not going to get pensions rather than be left in the position in which they do not know whether they will ever get one. I had a blissfully innocent man coming to see me last week. He felt that he had such a strong case for a pension that he was wondering whether with that prospect before him he could get a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I think that even if he had a pension he would find it hard enough to get a loan from that body, but to imagine that he would be able to get a loan by mortgaging a prospective pension from the Department of Defence indicated that the man had more courage than sense.

Dr. O'Higgins

It is a great thing to meet an odd optimist.

Mr. Norton

It is, and a simpleton, too. Will the Minister say if there is going to be any greater expedition in dealing with these cases during the next 12 months than there has been during the past six years? An examination of the Estimates would seem to indicate that there will be, but the Minister, when speaking, did not give much information on that aspect of the matter. For instance, on page 339, one finds the number of persons with pensions in the year 1939-40, and the number with pensions in the year 1940-41, with this footnote at the bottom:

"Add:—For probable additional charges: £109,514."

I assume that figure is for additional charges under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, because it is directly under the portion of the Estimate relating to that Act. Does that mean that during the year 1940-41 we are going to spend, on additional pensions, £109,000 odd? If we are, it seems to me to be rather extraordinary, because at present, while 4,576 persons in grade E rank are only costing £80,045, out of the total of 6,735, it seems to be anticipated that during the coming year there will probably be additional charges amounting to £109,000 odd. How much of that is in respect of annual pensions, and how much of it is in respect of arrears which may be due to successful applicants for pensions during the next year? I should like the Minister to give the House that information when replying.

With Deputy Cosgrave I agree that the cost of administering this service is unreasonably high. Many of the pensions to which the Minister referred are being paid since 1923 and 1924. While the total Vote for pensions is considerable, the sum involved in the payment of additional pensions is not very great, yet the administration of these additional amounts, and such investigation as is given, is apparently costing the State £20,000 a year. I do not know what the cost has been during the past six years, but assuming that it has been £20,000 a year, it means that we have expended £120,000 alone on the administration of these pension schemes. If, during the next three years, we are going to spend another £60,000, that will bring the total cost for the administration of our Army Pensions Acts to close on £200,000. That seems to be an unreasonably high figure. The body responsible for progress of that kind cannot congratulate itself on the efficiency or speed of the administrative machine.

I hope the Minister, when replying, will tell us at what rate it is intended to deal with the cases now on appeal, at what rate it is hoped to dispose of the 19,000 cases which have not yet been dealt with, and, above all, what is the explanation for the delay in giving a decision in the case of persons who were brought before the board for examination two and three years ago. Surely at this time it ought to be possible to tell these people what the decision is in their cases. That kind of delay is unreasonable and inexcusable. As we have two Ministers looking after defence now, one being employed whole-time on purely defence work, the other surely ought to make an examination of the administration of these Acts and be asked to put some life into the pensions boards which are, apparently, dead, judging by the slow rate of progress which they have been making during the past six years.

Dr. O'Higgins

I have very little to say on this Vote, and what I have to say on it I am saying in the capacity of the mouthpiece for very many others, most of whom have been active and violent opponents of mine since I came into public life. Together with my colleagues in the Labour Party and the Government Party, my main complaint for the past year is the greatly swollen post I have had from disappointed, weary, impatient applicants for pensions, who for five long weary years have been daily expecting to have a ruling on their claim, either giving them a pension or refusing them a pension. I have attended meetings here and there in the two counties I represent, and the atmosphere at every meeting was, to say the least of it, heated. If anyone were to come in here and enumerate the cases that are trotted out at such meetings and accept the statements made as being accurate, then I think all the Deputies in this House would join together in condemning the administration of these particular Acts.

I asked the previous Minister for Defence some years ago how were cases selected, how was it decided what cases would be taken first and what cases would be taken last, and he replied to me that certain applicants automatically ruled themselves out or were doubtful cases, that others appeared straight away to have a prima facie case, and that the latter class were dealt with first. That was a perfectly reasonable explanation if accurate. Since then I have moved around very much amongst applicants, applicants who live in the same parish or the same county, who made their applications on the same date many years ago, whose services were equal, engagement for engagement, and I found that one man got his assessment long ago and the other man can get nothing but the official card which Deputy Norton referred to. The only difference between the two was that one was politically important or politically influential or had influential political friends, and the other was an humble soldier, equally as good as a soldier and equally active, participating in the same engagements.

I am making no charge against any individual. We all know that in any Government service in the world the weight of influence can bring one case up earlier than another. What is the point in saying that that is not so? The most impressive kind of statement I have listened to from people I believe to be truthful is the statement of the man who tells me: "Here am I and there is my neighbour. We filled up our papers together the same evening, engagement for engagement. We were in the same company right along during the old Volunteer days and rendered the same active service. The papers were passed to the brigade representative on the same day and they were passed by the brigade representative to the Department on the same day. He got his pension some years ago; I have heard nothing since." The same service, the same engagements, same official approaches made, applications made on the same day; one case adjudicated upon in 1936; nothing heard of the other case in 1940. In practically every such case which I and others investigate we find a purely political importance attaching to one and the same political importance not attaching to the other. We had an outstanding case before the High Court recently—rather an important case— and I would say a case that was a fair example of what is happening to thousands of humble individuals throughout the country.

I opposed the Act of 1934 when it was introduced. I opposed, and still oppose, the principle of a State granting a pension to any individual for a period of activity against the State. We established a principle that will be the curse of this country in the future. The men who laid the mine in Dublin Castle last night are as much entitled to a pension from a subsequent Parliament as anybody, at any time, for activities against the Parliament elected by the people. Like any reasonably-minded Deputy, since the day the Act became law in spite of my views, I have pleaded for the full entitlement of every applicant under the law, but I fear that there is discriminating attention being given. We have read the list of people in our own constituencies who have pensions. The names are given, as is customary, without addresses. We can know the individuals in our own constituencies, even without the addresses, because of their political prominence. But in each of these counties there are 3,000, 4,000, 6,000 or 7,000 applicants, be the number as it may, more humble, less prominent, and still waiting.

I have been told that there are cases where the applications were filled in the same house on the same evening, forwarded the same day, similar engagements right along the line, similar length of service, similar hardships, where one man has got a pension and another has not. I asked for details of that sort. I was given them verbally. I asked for them in writing and I asked if the person in receipt of a pension was agreeable to come along and make a statement confirming the story of the other that their services were similar. I have been told verbally that such will be forthcoming. I do not want to refer to it further, but when I get the documents the Minister will get them.

I want the Minister to realise that there is very little faith, confidence, or trust in Ministerial estimates. Three years ago from this bench I listened to a Minister opposite telling me that the work would be finished in a few short years, that arrangements had been made for expediting the whole thing and that the rate of progress in future would be three times as great as the rate prior to that.

Here we find that steady rate year after year. Did it ever strike the Minister that, human nature being what it is, if a man is in a good job and has only that good job as long as he can stretch it out, the work is going to become very elastic? If there is not some driving force behind it, the rate of progress is going to be very slow. That would not matter if applicants with good claims were not dying day after day in the ordinary course of events. Delay would not matter if none of those who applied five or six years ago were destitute, but if even a percentage is destitute, and worse than that, destitute with families, then imagine what these six years' delay in giving them what they are justly entitled to in law means.

You can do a lot of things retrospectively, but you cannot give a man a dinner retrospectively. I remember a quarter-master in the army many years ago, who was so efficient in the red-tape sense that he turned up monthly to a post with the rations. He served rations for 30 days to hungry troops, and when they swore at him, he looked quite mystified and puzzled. He asked them what they had to complain about, and if they had not the 30 days rations. He was going to feed them for 30 days back. That cannot be done with food. You cannot give a man last week's dinner to-day. You can give it in kind or in cash, but the delay serves to be provocative. The type of replies people I am referring to get is adding to the provocation. Some serious attempt has got to be made to expedite the work. We are told that about 28,000 cases have been provisionally refused, 7,039 cases granted, some 20,000 cases outstanding, and 9,000 appeals. Of the 28,000 cases refused or provisionally rejected, I would be inclined to say, on a rough-and-ready estimate, that 50 per cent of these rule themselves out on their face, as people who had applied and were rejected under previous Acts, that never had the type of service referred to, and that any pay clerk would push on one side.

When you make allowance for these, the number of claims dealt with is about half the gross figure given by the Minister. That is five years' work, during which the Minister and his predecessor told us the staffs were working overtime. We have still 20,000 cases outstanding, and something like 9,000 appeals. If the rate of progress maintained so far continues, and if that satisfies the Minister year after year, we will have those cases dealt with, I reckon, in from 14 to 20 years after the men applied. Say that a man has a genuine case, that he went through hardship, imprisonment and, perhaps, a hunger strike, 20 years after there is a ruling on his claim, but the decision can be written on his tombstone.

I want to get the Minister and his mind away from figures and files. I want him to think of the human living thing, that is watching the postman every morning for an answer to a claim lodged, we will say, in 1935, and to whom everybody he met periodically in the past five years said: "Oh, we will ring up the Department and see that your case is seen to." These individuals do their best, as promised, but the case still remains one of the 20,000 down the line, possibly to be dealt with within the next five, ten or twelve years. Is that fair to old comrades of any of us? Is it fair to a man who was with us or against us? Is it fair to anybody entitled to have a ruling on a claim? That is all these people want —a ruling. I did not hear any big grouse from people whose claims were rejected, but I heard a very general grouse about not getting any reply. I heard criticism, and I subscribe to it, of the interpretation put on the phrase, "active service". I was told that "active service" was being boiled down to pulling the trigger of a gun. It was no military man made that ruling. It was no man with a military mind that made that ruling. Every man who had a half-an-hour's military experience knows that it is not for the soldier to select his job, that it is for the officer to allocate the job to the soldier, and that the job of the man standing by idle, waiting for a casualty, or carrying a casualty, might be more nerve-racking than the man in the heat of the fight; that the man who was a watch-out scout or a signaller or a stretcher-bearer has just as much an active service job as the fellow pulling the trigger of the rifle.

I do not know whether the interpretation is as narrow as I am putting it, that a man must actually have been a fighting man, and in a fight, and that nobody else is pensionable. These were the statements made to me. Will the Minister name an army pensions scheme applicable to any army in the civilised world, where the interpretation is so narrow, and shows such a lack of appreciation of military facts? Who made that interpretation? That was not the interpretation put on the Act by Dáil Eireann; that was not the interpretation put on the same words in the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924. Was there a change of interpreters? If so, who is the interpreter? If the interpretation is a just one, and if it is being uniformly applied, and has been consistently applied in a similar way in both Acts, then I have no grievance. I am merely the mouthpiece for cases stated to me. I have not been close up to the machine, and have not been inside the machine administering these Acts. These were the points put to me.

There is another matter that I ask the Minister to consider. I raised it repeatedly, and sometimes got a kind of half agreement that it would be looked into. We have men under all our Pensions Acts, the Military Pensions Act, 1924, the Army Pensions scheme, and the Military Pensions Act, 1934, getting pensions as low as 3/- and 4/- a week—£5 a year, £6 a year or £8 a year. These pensions are only a weight pulling these men down. If the man is out of work, his unemployment assistance is reduced by the 3/- or 4/- a week; he gets nothing as a result of his service. In other countries, men with very small pensions are allowed to commute them—to cash them at the Department of Defence. Men with larger pensions are allowed to commute down to a certain figure. We have a precedent in our own Department of Defence—a precedent that was raised at Geneva. In the first Pensions Bill prepared in the Department of Defence and approved by the Dáil when everyone was young, keen and enthusiastic and when obstacles were there only to be removed, not to be shied at, the case of the small pension was dealt with. You pensioned for a degree of disability down to 20 per cent. For anything less than that a lump sum was given under that Act instead of contemptible pensions of 2/6 a week which are no good to anybody.

That was the precedent established by the first Irish Department of Defence in its first pensions scheme. Why has that been departed from? Why have you people drawing pensions of 2/6 a week? These pensions will neither break them nor make them. When out of work, these pensions merely mean a saving to the unemployment assistance funds. If the men got a lump-sum instead—the price of a hackney car, sufficient to take a piece of land for a year or two, the price of a few pigs or calves—they might be able to launch themselves into something worth while.

The legal facility for commuting pensions does not in any country confer the right to commute pensions. Pensions can only be commuted in any country subject to the sanction of the Minister. If he is dealing with a wastrel, with a man who will cash in his pension and leave his family in the ditch, sanction to commutation would never be forthcoming from any responsible Department. But where the individual is able to go to the responsible Department and say: "I have a chance of making good either at home or abroad if I can get a lump-sum amounting, say, to five years of my pension. I have a chance of going into partnership or buying a bit of land, or joining a brother in Australia"—where a reasonable case is put up, and where a man is reported as reliable, we should provide legal machinery for commuting these pensions, the issue of which is merely causing administrative trouble, worry and cost. It costs as much to send a pension to the fellow who is getting 2/- a week as it does to administer the pension of the man who is getting £300 a year. Why not save at both ends? Why not give the men a chance? Why not follow the precedent established in a previous Pensions Act—a precedent established years ago in every other Defence Department dealing with military pensions?

Mr. Davin

If the figures supplied to the House to-night, with the information given by the Minister in his statement, represent the facts, then, in my opinion, there is a very good case for the setting up of a court of inquiry or a select committee—if there were a free vote of the House—to investigate the administration of the Act of 1934. The figures given by the Minister to-night, when related to similar figures supplied to me on the 8th November last, are very interesting. On the 8th November, in reply to a question, I was informed that the number of applications for pensions under the 1934 Act was 59,780; that the number of applicants interviewed up to the 31st October, 1939, was 15,756; that the number of pensions sanctioned was 6,985; and the number of applications rejected, 3,790.

It is interesting to note that, in the intervening five months the number of additional favourable reports made was as low as 54. The number of pensions sanctioned up to the 31st October, 1939, was 6,985, and the figure supplied by the Minister to-night was 7,039, which shows that only 54 additional favourable reports were made in the intervening period. The number of applications rejected within the same period was 24,819. That will be very interesting information for the people who have been waiting five and a half years to hear the verdict of the board set up to deal with their applications.

Of the 24,819 applications rejected in the intervening period of five months, the Minister tells us that there will likely be about 9,000 appeals. I ask the Minister for information as to the number of claims already heard by the Service Pensions Board and deferred, and which are still awaiting a decision. I am aware that some applicants attended before the Pensions Board in 1936, 1937 and 1938, and that they are still awaiting a decision consequent on their interview with the board. According to the figure supplied to me by the Minister on the 8th November, 1939, there were 4,981 cases of persons who had attended before the board since the coming into operation of the Act. From the figures supplied by the Minister to-night, there must be a large additional number of deferred cases. The case I would make for inquiry into the administration of this Act would mainly centre round the inability or unwillingness of the Service Pensions Board and the responsible Minister—I am not sure which Minister is responsible in this matter—to deal with the claims of genuine applicants called before them as far back as 1936, 1937 and 1938. I do not want to go into individual cases in a discussion on the Estimate. But if I cannot get in the near future definite replies to representations which I have made repeatedly in writing, I will decorate the Order Paper with questions, as I am entitled to do, regarding these cases.

I have been asked to raise individual cases in this House, but I do not like doing so. I have received assurances from the Minister's predecessor here in this House, and the assurances were confirmed in writing—Deputy Norton received the same assurances in reply to questions addressed to the previous Minister in the House—that the cases of needy, genuine applicants would receive preference, so far as the Pensions Board could give a preference, in deciding such cases. I have repeatedly written to the Minister for Defence during the last three years about the case of a casual road worker who was interviewed by the board in 1937, a man who gets only a couple of months work in the year from the local authority in my constituency, a man with a wife and eight children. It appears to be impossible for the powers that be to come to a decision in that man's case. I have written to the Minister also about the case of a man who has admitted 1916 service and who had to leave this country to look for a living in another land. He is there at the present time, but he cannot get a decision on his case although it was before the board in 1938. He has a letter from a colleague of the Minister for Defence admitting that the service during 1916 period is in order. Other service rendered subsequent to 1916 in another part of the country cannot be confirmed because the persons who were named in the application form have since died. I press the Minister to say that even if the board cannot admit the service that man rendered in another part of the country at a particular period, simply because the witnesses are dead, surely they can decide the case on the evidence admitted and give the man the right to appeal? He has a right of appeal, although I am informed that when that man interviewed a certain official he was told he had no such right. At least he told me that he was informed that he had not that right, but I am not prepared to admit it.

I have also written to the Department of Defence about the claim of a constituent of mine who died before he was called before the board and who, in the opinion of the local officers of the brigade with which he was associated, had a genuine claim for a military service pension. His widow wrote to me from a sanatorium where she is at the present time. There are 11 orphans. I am not saying that they are all absolutely dependent on whatever income goes into that house. Two or three of them are working at present but in any case it is an application that is deserving of consideration. Having regard to the fact that the dependants of the applicant are in needy circumstances, it is a case that should be decided before cases of applicants who are members of the Oireachtas. I have information in my possession and other Deputies are also in possession of the same information——

Mr. Murphy

How many of their claims are outstanding?

Mr. Davin

I am referring to a list giving the names of members of the Oireachtas who are in receipt of military service or other pensions from the State. There are 30 members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Oireachtas drawing fairly decent pensions. Why should they decide to press their own claims for pensions before pressing the claims of deserving applicants such as I have mentioned and whose claims were promised prior consideration by the previous Minister? As I say, I do not like going into individual cases but there are many sad cases that could be cited here. Deputy O'Higgins has access to information of the same kind relating to applications from the constituency which he and I have the honour to represent. I should be quite satisfied if these were disposed of one way or another. The majority of the men who made applications under the 1934 Act were not supporters of mine, and for a good reason—because they were promised by other persons that if they voted for the Fianna Fáil Party they would get the pensions which they had applied for.

Out of the 7,039 cases that have been already decided, about 130 are those of persons residing in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Eighty-two of them have been granted pensions of less than 10/- and, as Deputy O'Higgins has stated, some of the pensions are as low as £5 16s. 8d. a year. As Deputy O'Higgins stated, the fact that they are in receipt of such a pension is used against successful applicants who may have to look for work at some period of the year or in cases where they have to apply for unemployment assistance. The small pensions which they are receiving are taken into account in connection with the means test and operates to reduce the sum that they would otherwise receive by way of unemployment assistance.

In reply to a question some time ago, I was supplied with information as to the cost of administering this measure and I can say that the figure quoted by Deputy Norton, taken in conjunction with the statement made by the Minister, is approximately correct. If it takes three years more to carry on the present "codology" which characterises the method of dealing with military service pensions, it will cost the State about £160,000 before these cases are finally disposed of. That is a nice sum to look forward to finding. Deputies are constantly pressing the Government for grants for minor relief works and for grants for the provision of work for the unemployed and they find they cannot get any hearing simply because they are told that the burden would be too heavy if the grants for relief works were increased in the various areas. I have frequently made applications for the carrying out of minor relief schemes. I have been told that there is only a certain limited sum available for that very desirable purpose and that it cannot be exceeded but apparently there is no limit to the amount of money that can be squandered in connection with the administration of this Act, or apparently no time limit is fixed for the determination of applications made under the Act.

I share the view expressed by Deputy O'Higgins that this Act has been administered in a partisan and Party-minded manner, because it is quite evident that the applications of those who receive prior consideration are applications of persons who are more closely associated with the Government and the Government Party in the country. If there is any proof required in support of that statement it can be found in the return of the names of those who have been granted pensions, several of whom are members of the Dáil and Seanad. There are at present 36 persons, members of the Dáil and Seanad, receiving pensions. Thirty of them are members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the other six are members of the Opposition Party.

Can the Minister say whether the change in the chairmanship of the board and in the membership of the board, inside the period of five and a half years, has anything to do with the dilatory manner in which these pension applications have been dealt with? The Minister knows better than anybody else that some of the people responsible for administering this Pensions Act were anything but sympathetic to the fight for independence which went on in this country in pre-Truce times. I am saying no more than that, but that is a fact and the Minister cannot deny it. Can that be taken as a reason for the dilatory manner in which these claims are being disposed of, and particularly for the manner in which the deferred cases are being still further deferred?

Referring again to the cases which have been heard by the board and deferred over a long period, does it not stand to reason that the longer you defer a decision in connection with these cases the more difficult it becomes to come to a final decision? Some of the applicants who have appeared before the board as far back as 1936, 1937 and 1938 have in some cases, given as witnesses in support of their applications the names of persons who have died in recent times. The longer the delay in coming to a decision in connection with cases still outstanding, I suppose, the more witnesses will disappear from the face of this earth and the less chance there will be in the long run of the cases of these deferred applicants being finally disposed of to the satisfaction of the applicants.

I have heard here during the past couple of weeks a good deal of comment and questions addressed to the Minister regarding the activities of the present Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures—and the co-ordination, I suppose, of everything else associated with the Government—does not appear to have a full-time job. It was part of his job, at any rate, to introduce and pass through the House the measure we are now criticising, and I suggest that, if he has not got full-time employment, there is no better job which could be given to him than to set him aside fully, and for whatever period is required, to inquire into the dilatory and unsatisfactory administration of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934. If the Government is sincerely anxious to dispose of the claims made under that Act for the payment of pensions, inside a fairly reasonable period, they should get some person who understands the intentions of the Government in regard to this particular Act and who has some knowledge of its administration over a certain period, to hurry up the administration and speed up decisions on deferred and other outstanding cases.

I understand that, in my constituency, when some applicants have spoken to some of my Fianna Fáil colleagues on recent occasions regarding this, they were told: "If you had left your case to us, it would have been disposed of long ago. Why did you hand it over to Davin and O'Higgins? That is making it almost certain that you are not going to have a pension decided in your favour." I call upon the Minister to give decisions—favourable or otherwise—in these deferred cases, especially in the cases outstanding since 1936, 1937 and 1938, and let the credit for giving the pensions go to anybody he likes.

My post-bag in recent times, like the post-bag of other Deputies—members of the Opposition, particularly—has been considerably increased on account of the dissatisfaction—genuine dissatisfaction—which exists throughout the country owing to the failure of the Department to give decisions within a reasonable period in connection with claims made under the 1934 Act. As I said, I do not care who gets the credit for the decisions, so long as the decisions are given within a reasonable time.

I wonder if the Minister will get up at the conclusion of this debate and say that he is fully satisfied, when—inside a period of five and a half years—less than half the applications have been dealt with? He did not give the number of applicants who have appeared before the board up to the 31st March. Would he please give that information in his reply? He gave me information on the 8th November, 1939, to the effect that 15,756 persons out of 59,780 applicants had then appeared before the board. From the figures given here this evening, it looks as if a number of persons whose claims have been turned down were not given an opportunity to appear and be heard before the board.

Will the Minister say, on that point, whether the applicant has a right to obtain an interview with the board, or whether the Minister and the board reserve power under the Act to decline to grant an interview to an applicant for any stated reason, or if it is a fact that an applicant who has appeared before the board and whose case has still to be decided upon, will not have the right to appeal in the future? I contend that any applicant who has appeared before the board and received an unsatisfactory decision, even though it may have been a decision granting a certain amount, still has the right to appear before the board and appeal.

Mr. Traynor

He has, of course.

Mr. Davin

A case has been brought to my notice recently of an unemployed man living in the city who received an award on the 13th December, 1937, stating that he was entitled to a pension on the basis of two and one-thirty-sixth years. He appealed against that decision at the end of December, and has not been called before the board, nor has he heard a word other than the usual polite printed acknowledgment form which has been sent to such persons by the Military Service Pensions Board. I made representations during the past couple of months to the Department about that case, as the man concerned is unemployed. It cannot be denied that he is a genuine applicant, as he has already been granted service recognition for a certain period. He is out of work and, therefore, can be regarded as a necessitous case.

Why is it that persons of that type are not granted a re-hearing by the board, seeing that, in this case at any rate, the person concerned appealed against the previous decision as far back as December, 1937? There is something radically wrong with the way these deferred claims are being disposed of. There is there, if nowhere else, a case for inquiry by the Minister for Defence, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence—certainly, by somebody who is sincerely anxious to see that the wishes and intentions of the Government responsible for the passage of the 1934 Act are properly and legally administered.

Mr. Murphy

I would like that the long-drawn-out agony which a large number of people endure in this way for pensions could be shortened by some method. I do not think that ought to be beyond the power of the Minister and the Department of Defence. Even if it involved extra cost, I think it would be worth it, to be able to indicate a date—within a reasonably short time—when most of the claims would be disposed of. One ought to be struck by a statement made in the courts recently by a responsible member of the Judiciary that, at the present rate of progress, it is reasonable to think that decisions would be given in cases after the people had died, or, rather, that the death of a number of people would finally determine their claims. I trust that the rather grim prophecy of Deputy O'Higgins, that the decisions will finally be inscribed on the tombstones of the applicants in a large number of cases, will not be realised. I think it reasonable to suppose that, by the time the decisions are likely to materialise in a number of cases, the applicants will be actively pressing their claims for the old age pension.

Judging by the ages of a number of people who, recently and for the last two or three years, have been making this pathetic trek to Dublin in order to urge their cases, one may well think that it is a very reasonable possibility. I have seen numbers of unfortunate men being summoned up from various parts of the country, even from the most remote parts of the country, in connection with these claims, and to anybody having any reasonable amount of common sense it is apparent that, in a large number of these cases, the hopes of securing a pension are extremely small. Accordingly, one wonders why there should be all this raising of hopes which there is very little possibility of seeing realised when one knows the facts locally.

When one sees all this raising of hopes that has been going on for the last few years in this connection, one is driven to give some consideration to the viewpoint that there is a method in all this business. From the shadows of the past I can recall two or three astonishing coincidences having taken place—two in 1937 and 1938. There was a very extraordinary coincidence on each occasion, and that was that gatherings to which I am now referring took place two or three weeks before the election. I remember, in the town that I live in, seeing on one such occasion this trek from the hills and valleys into the town by people of all ages and different sexes, and in all kinds of conveyances, to a meeting that was called to take place in the town hall.

A certain gentleman connected with a certain organisation, not connected with this House, and to which I do not wish to refer, went into long and detailed particulars of the claims of the various people, and these people were promised that, in a very short time after the election their cases would be decided. I understand that at a final stage of the meeting there was a declaration that, of course, the meeting was entirely non-political but that the most effective way to secure satisfaction in connection with these military service pension claims was to vote and actively work for the Fianna Fáil candidates in the coming election. I know that most of the men concerned, and practically none of the women concerned, have heard very little about their claims since then, and I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to recall this meeting or convention if we should have a general election before these cases are finally decided.

There is a lot that seems to be suspicious and somewhat sordid in connection with this whole business. We hear of the kind of sordid intrigue that has gone on through the country in connection with claims for rank— claims that are said to be fictitious in many cases, for a certain rank, when it is locally known that the decisions that have been come to in many cases of that kind could not be justified. However, I am not trying to arraign the Minister on that particular matter and I should like to make it perfectly clear that my own view about the Minister who is in charge of this Department at present, and the impression that he has made on me, and I believe, on my colleagues, is that he is an honest man trying to do his duty honestly.

I acquit him entirely of anything of the sort to which I have referred, but I must certainly say that, in a good many cases, certain people have used this Act for political purposes and in order to propagate the view that people outside one particular Party ought to have no right to advocate the claims of people who are looking forward to military service pensions for services rendered according to the terms of this Act. It is significant also that in large numbers of cases the applications of men who were officers in the past, or who claimed to be officers, have been decided, but the bulk of the outstanding claims consists of that humble but rather numerous section of the population who gave freely all that they had to give at a time when position did not count as much as sincerity of purpose and honesty of ideal.

I trust that it is not beyond the power of the Minister to shorten this earthly purgatory for a large number of people. I did not meet a case such as that suggested by Deputy Norton, but I know of a number of cases of people who have gone to the local bank manager to ask for an advance in the hope of hearing satisfying news about their pension claims coming along in a few weeks, and I am afraid that these people are going to be disillusioned. I think there is very little hope of securing an advance on an asset of that doubtful kind, and very little hope, in some cases, of getting a pension at all. I think that these people should be told definitely the position in regard to their cases, and I would urgently press on the Minister to take some steps to speed up the operation of this Act and to endeavour to have the whole matter finally disposed of at a very much earlier period than has been indicated here this evening.

Mr. J. Flynn

I regretted to hear Deputy Murphy insinuating that pensions had been obtained under false pretences or, in other words, that men obtained military service pensions for a rank to which they were not entitled. As far as I am aware, the majority of the men—down our way, in any case— who claimed rank were entitled to that rank. There may be claims made by men who did not hold rank in the first period, but who subsequently held rank, and that happened simply because men who were formerly in charge of units were interned, and I submit that men who were claiming rank in either case were entitled to make these claims under the terms of the Act. Accordingly, I regretted to hear Deputy Murphy making a sweeping statement suggesting that large numbers of men claimed rank under the present system who were not entitled to that rank.

We have various grievances put forward in reference to the working of this Act and the working of the board in connection with their idea of active service, and I agree entirely and wholeheartedly with the statement of Deputy O'Higgins when he said that this interpretation of active service was not the interpretation intended or approved of by the Dáil when giving its approval to the Military Service Pensions Act of 1934.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Tuesday next.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 30th April, 1940, at 3 p.m.