Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Apr 1940

Vol. 79 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

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.

Mr. J. Flynn

On the last occasion on which this motion was before the House, I was referring to this question of active service and the interpretation placed on the phrase by the board. I submit that it is a very open matter and, in fact, the Act itself does not clearly define the phrase "active service" as active service was understood by the men who participated in the fight for freedom. The Act, and the board administering it, throw the onus on the applicant of proving that his statement in itself proves matters in respect of which counsel and other clever people in this country may be in doubt, that is, as to whether the phrase "active service" is properly interpreted by either the board or the Minister. This question of the critical date is referred to, but, around that question, the board built up a network of queries, and they prescribe that unless an applicant actually participated in arms and was engaged in what they call a major operation, he is not qualified for a pension. I submit that, where a man has shown general service during the period of the Anglo-Irish war and who subsequently gave service during the civil war period, that service should be accepted as general service by that applicant.

Deputy O'Higgins, the other night, made the point that, under the 1924 Act, a very broad interpretation was given to "active service", and I quite agree that it was a proper interpretation. All we ask is that the board, in deciding cases under the 1934 Act, should take the same line and give a broad interpretation to this term. We admit, of course, that it is difficult to meet every case, but there have been very drastic and, to my mind, very unfair decisions in the cases of men who gave good service to the country, and I appeal to the Minister to request the referee and the board to adopt the interpretation which was adopted previously. There is a great deal of red tape in connection with the procedure that is at present being carried on by the board in dealing with the claims of these men. The applicants have to meet with many difficulties. For instance, they are told to ask the brigade officers to submit lists of men and maps of the areas where different engagements took place. I suggest that it is a very difficult thing to produce such maps and to give the exact location of the areas where various actions took place 23 or 24 years ago.

I think the board should approach these matters in a different spirit altogether. Too many difficulties are being placed in the way of applicants. At the same time, I realise the difficulties that the members of the board are faced with. They are faced with thousands of applications and it is difficult to segregate the really genuine applicants from others who are applying. What I have in mind at the moment are the cases where men had good service—what we call good, general service. The position is that the members of the board say that unless there is evidence of major conflicts and unless the particular areas are defined, the men will be disqualified. What is to happen in a case where, through no fault of the brigade officer or any other person, an action did not take place? What is to happen in the case where there was no opportunity to enable the men in a certain area to qualify? The board never seem to take these aspects of the situation into consideration. Making a contrast as between the interpretation put on the Act of 1924 and the present one, I believe that it worked out satisfactorily and to the benefit of the applicants.

There is another matter with which I would like to deal and it has relation to the men who applied for disability pensions. The men who went to America or Australia or other countries did not have an opportunity of knowing that there was a time limit, and it is possible that many applications were late. I think the Minister should allow the period to be extended in respect of these men so that their applications for disability pensions may be considered. We have a few cases in Kerry where men were disabled in action; they are disabled at the present moment as a result of injuries received in the troubled times. They left the country and when they came back a year or two ago they were informed that their applications for pensions could not be considered. In such cases the men should be given an opportunity to apply and state their cases. I understand that some years ago the period for application was extended. I suggest that the same thing is now possible in connection with special cases, such as those to which I have referred.

Another matter of importance concerns the means test. Down in my county there are numbers of old I.R.A. men receiving small pensions. In some cases the men are in receipt of unemployment assistance, and I suggest there is very unfair discrimination in so far as the means test is concerned. Sometimes the amount assessed against a man for the purpose of arriving at a figure for the unemployment assistance to which he would be entitled, is unreasonable. It is very unfair to treat these men in such a fashion. The Minister should reconsider this matter. I think, in gratitude to these men and as a mark of the country's appreciation, they should be exempt from the means test, especially those who are in receipt of small pensions. There should be some more equitable adjustment so that these cases can be arranged to the satisfaction of the men concerned.

I suggest that the Minister should consult with the members of the board and place these aspects of the situation before them. I know that there are men who were called before the board two or three years ago and their cases have not yet been decided. I cannot understand why men are being called before the board every other day while there are hundreds and thousands of cases remaining undecided. Why cannot some decision be arrived at in regard to the men who were brought up two or three years ago? Let the board decide one way or the other in regard to the men who have already been examined. In my opinion the Minister should at once consult with the members of the board and have a review of the whole position and he should urge the board to expedite matters and arrive at some definition on the question of active service.

Mr. Corish

I want to add my voice to the protests made in connection with the granting of pensions. There has been a good deal of delay and one finds it hard to understand the reason for such delay. In some cases one might say that not alone is there unreasonable delay, but there would appear to be actual procrastination. Repeatedly Deputies have asked, through the medium of questions, why certain claims have been held up and they usually get what might be described as an irresponsible kind of reply indicating that the matter is under consideration and it will be expedited. The Deputy who has just sat down talked about numbers of men who were brought before the board and whose claims were heard as far back as four years ago. I cannot see any reason why the claims of these men should not be decided by now. There should be some kind of definite reply sent to those people. I have in mind a town in my constituency, the town of Enniscorthy. I think it will be admitted that, outside of Dublin, Enniscorthy was the only place where there was an actual rising in Easter Week. To the shame of the Government——

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Past and present.

Mr. Corish

——be it said that there are numbers of people in that town whose claims have not yet been considered. I have before me a letter from a lady who was a member of the Cumann na mBan at that time and who took part in the rising. She got married some time afterwards. Her husband is dead and she is left with five children. She was brought before the board two years ago, but she has not heard anything about her claim since. This lady is in a very bad way. That is not the way to treat people who took their lives in their hands in Easter Week when they went out to fight for their country. Anybody who was familiar with Enniscorthy knows the position that obtained there in Easter Week, 1916. A comparatively small number of people took control of the town. They were surrounded by military and inside three or four days they were in a very precarious and dangerous position. But they never yielded until two of their members were brought by a British officer to interview the late Patrick Pearse in Dublin. The treatment these people are getting now is an absolute disgrace. I suggest that something should be done at once to expedite their claims.

Deputy Flynn has referred to what he considered a gross scandal in some cases so far as the men who are drawing pensions are concerned. In a great number of cases it would be better for these men if they were getting no pension at all. That is because of the fact that the small amount they are getting is taken into consideration when from time to time employment is being offered on relief work. The men who took their lives in their hands and went out in the service of the country during Easter Week period and during the period of the Black and Tans and who, because of these services got a pension, should not be discriminated against in the matter of relief work. These pensions should be ignored altogether and not taken into consideration when work is being offered. In Enniscorthy we have a number of men who served their country in Easter Week, but because some of them got very small pensions they are not because of that given employment when relief work offers. I have been asked to bring this matter before the Government in the hope they will give it their consideration. The means test should not be applicable in the case of these Army pensions. Taking these pensions into consideration is not treating these men as they deserve to be treated. I ask the Minister now to urge the board to have these Enniscorthy cases expedited. These claimants deserve well of the country. We are proud of the stand Enniscorthy took during Easter Week and also in the Black and Tan period, but it is very poor consideration these men are getting now in being treated as they are being treated. One might go so far as to say that their claims are being ignored. A number of them were brought up here about two or three years ago. They were brought up prior to the elections in 1937 and 1938. That was simply because they were wanted for work at the elections. They have heard not a word about their claims since. The men were merely made use of to fight these elections.

General Mulcahy

Before Deputy Walsh makes a contribution to this question, I think he should make one particular matter clear. He does not seem to grasp the matter rightly. He suggested that the neglect of the 1916 men's claims for pensions applied equally to the past as well as to the present Government.

Mr. Corish

I did not say that.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I did. That is quite correct.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Walsh, when Deputy Corish was speaking, seemed to suggest that the neglect applied equally to the past and the present Government. The Pensions Act passed by the last Government dealt with men in the National Army who had pre-truce service. So far as the 1916 men were concerned it only dealt with the widows and dependents and men who were disabled. When the 1932-1933 Bill was introduced it was very definitely opposed from these benches. But when it was clear that the Bill was going to pass then the question of the men who served in 1916 was raised. The question was raised that there were men who served in 1916 whose situation for many reasons was difficult. It was urged that if men who were not in the National Army were to be pensioned for services in 1932 and 1933, the men who had service in 1916 should get some consideration. That argument was pressed from these benches. It was urged on the Government that the 1916 men should be included. That contention was definitely opposed by the Minister for Defence who was handling the Bill. But second thoughts prevailed in the Seanad and finally the 1916 men were included in the Bill. So that in respect of that service for the granting of pensions and the delays in making the awards, the previous Government is in no way responsible and they have no responsibility.

Mr. Walsh

They should have.

General Mulcahy

I wanted to get the Deputy right on that fact. He can make whatever he has in his mind clearer when he speaks.

Mr. Hickey

I have been rather annoyed for some time past by the number of claimants coming to me asking me to hurry up a decision in the matter of their pension claims. Having heard a statement from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures that only men engaged in major operations will be considered in the matter of the pensions, I am at a loss to understand why so many men had been called to Dublin since that statement was made and since that decision was arrived at. A number of those men who have come to Dublin have found it very difficult to procure their railway fare. I know they got vouchers which entitled them to some reduction in their fares, but many of them were on the dole and they had to borrow money to make up their fares to Dublin. That is as far back as 18 months ago, but since then they have not heard one word about their pensions claims. I am inclined to think that there is a good deal of favouritism about these pensions. I say that in all sincerity, because in connection with the recent elections I have in mind a member of the Volunteers of previous days who was engaged in an interesting operation in the South Mall in Cork. He happened to be interested in the late elections in Cork and was canvassing for Labour. I am aware that he was called in to a certain organisation and asked if he persisted in that canvassing did he expect to be given his pension. I mention that now as a case in point in which an applicant for a pension was interfered with in that manner. I know a girl who, in 1918-1919, was taken out of a certain occupation and who undertook some work of national importance. She went into a certain job at the time to do the things that were required. But since then she has been knocked about from place to place. She is now penniless. Her case was mentioned by influential people, but so far no decision has been given in her case. As against that, I know of other cases where people who were no way active at all in the struggle for freedom or in the Civil War have had their pensions granted to them. I ask the Minister to give us some definite statement here, to-day, as to the reasons for these delays. If people are only to be given pensions within certain rules and regulations, surely it is unfair to call them up to Dublin if the rules and regulations do not entitle them to a pension. Some 12 months ago a number of fellows met me outside the gate here. They had come from a remote part of the County Cork and from Cork City. They had been called up about their pensions. I met them since and they told me that So-and-so got a pension, a man who was never known to have done any national service. I have been asked by these people to ventilate this matter here, and to do something about their claims. But I have not made any effort about it, because a certain procedure and certain machinery have to be gone through.

I am not at all satisfied with the system we have in operation for the granting of pensions. Deputy John Flynn spoke about the means test. I am sure the Deputy will realise that there is not much use in making an appeal to the Minister about the means test, in view of the fact that this House passed an Act under which a rigid means test is applied not only to those men who fought for their country but to others who may be in receipt of small pensions. Take the case of a man who has been in some employment for 40 or 50 years and is now in receipt of a small pension of 5/- or 6/- a week from his trade union. That small pension is taken into consideration when he applies for unemployment assistance. I agree with Deputy Flynn that it is unworthy of this or any other Government to apply a means test of that kind to men who may be in receipt of a small pension of 10/- or 15/- a week from a native or a foreign Government, from some organisation or from a past employer. I am very strongly opposed to this means test because I think it is contrary to decency and justice. In conclusion, I put it to the Minister that the utmost dissatisfaction prevails throughout the country at the manner in which pension claims are being dealt with. It is time now that we should reach some finality on this, and have a clear statement from the Government as to what the future position of applicants for pensions is going to be.

Mr. McCann

I am sorry that the Opposition should have chosen to debate this Estimate in a Party spirit, because I think each and every member of the House has experienced the same difficulty so far as pension claims are concerned. I believe that we are all at one in our criticism of the operation of the Pensions Acts, and in wanting the hearing of claims expedited. We are all at one, also, in thinking that too rigid an interpretation is being placed on the term "active service". As a matter of fact, that term is not defined in the Act. We are all aware that a number of organisations have, for many years, been seeking to get that term defined. We are all at one as well on the question of the means test. I cannot for the life of me understand how people who were called before the board two years ago have not yet received an assessment of their claims. If the present system is found to be too unwieldy, then I think that another should be devised whereby the hearing of claims would be expedited and pensions computed. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the setting up of regional committees so that certain members of the present pensions board could, so to speak, go on circuit and take evidence in different parts of the country from brigade staffs and other people likely to be able to give evidence in regard to claims. That would obviate the necessity of bringing unfortunate men up to Dublin and of putting them to a good deal of expense in the matter of railway and hotel charges. Deputy O'Higgins, when speaking, made what I thought was a very sound suggestion, and I put it to the Minister that he ought to give it consideration. Possibly, the suggestion could not be given effect to within the terms of the present Act, but perhaps the Minister would consider introducing amending legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that legislation may not be advocated in discussing the Estimates.

Mr. McCann

Well, I will ask the Minister to keep the suggestion in mind. It was to the effect that, in the case of men in receipt of very small pensions, the Minister might consider capitalising the pension over, say, a period of ten or 15 years and of giving the pensioner a lump sum. If that were done it would prove extremely helpful to numbers of old I.R.A. men who have received allotments of land. At present they are not in a position to work the land, because they have no capital. If a scheme of the kind suggested were framed and put into operation it should prove an ideal one, because it would be the means of putting numbers of old I.R.A. men in a position in which they would be able to work their allotments of land. I also put it to the Minister that steps should be taken immediately to define the term "active service". The present position is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst old I.R.A. men. You have cases like this turning up that men who went out on ambushes and actually engaged the enemy have received pensions, whereas the men who were covering the retreat or were detailed on outpost duty in the same engagement have not yet received pensions. I do not think that is altogether fair.

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that "he also serves who only stands and waits". You have many old I.R.A. men in Dublin who were engaged on patrol duty, sometimes for a week, a fortnight or a month and who, while on that duty, were in constant danger of death, and yet because they did not actually engage the enemy have not been granted pensions. I think service of that kind would offer a proper basis for the assessment of a pension. Those were men who were ready to serve. Many of them were arrested and put in gaol, some of them for a year or more. They sacrificed their means of livelihood and sometimes a university career because of the fact that they were members of, and were serving in, the Irish Republican Army. Yet service of that kind is not taken into consideration when assessing claims. In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will do something about expediting the hearing of claims, of getting a definition of the term "active service", and, finally, abolishing, if possible, the means test.

Mr. Brasier

I want to re-echo the statements made by other members with regard to the delay that has taken place in the assessment of pensions, particularly in the case of those who have been called up for interview. That delay is inflicting very severe hardship on a number of persons who are in very poor circumstances. I can recall the case of one man in Cork who has been waiting for six years for an assessment of his pension claim. He is the only support of his mother and is unemployed at the moment. Quite a number of men in my area are continually complaining of the apparent lack of interest shown in regard to their applications. All those men assert that their claims are deserving of consideration. I heartily support the suggestion made by the last speaker that regional committees should be set up with a view to expediting the hearing of the claims sent in. Regional committees were set up in relation to another matter, and I can tell Deputies that the decision to do that was a source of the greatest convenience to applicants for pensions. Its adoption in this case is, I suggest, deserving of the best consideration by the Minister. It would save numbers of men a great amount of expense. I support the appeal made from all sides of the House that greater expedition should be shown in the hearing of pension claims so that men entitled to pensions would get them at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I did not intend taking part in this debate but for the fact that Deputy Mulcahy took umbrage at my truthful interjection to the effect that if there has been any delay in this matter it is as much the fault of the late Government as it is of the present Government. Deputy Mulcahy was a member of the previous Government and some of us have very good reason to know that, when he was Minister for Defence, he was not then much concerned as to the fate of that remnant of 1916 men who were left to eke out an existence as best they could.

General Mulcahy

I was concerned with the fate of the nation for very good reasons.

Mr. Walsh

I am aware of it as much as the Deputy himself. I personally have always been opposed to this question of pensions. I am one who never lodged a claim for a pension, to which I have as good a right as many people who are enjoying pensions to-day; many who were granted them during Deputy Mulcahy's period as Minister for Defence. I contend that it is the very definite duty of this nation to compensate every individual who participated in the efforts that eventually succeeded in securing for this country the degree of freedom which we have. But I do hold that it is not the right, nor is it the duty of the nation, to pension able-bodied men who gave voluntary service to the nation. These are my views so far as pensions are concerned. I do hold, however, that it is the very definite duty of this nation to compensate fully every single individual in this country who sacrificed his health in any way in that struggle and the dependents of those who sacrificed their lives.

That brings me to another point. In the discussion of pensions and compensation, Deputy Mulcahy referred to widows and orphans. I have a bitter experience of trying to do something for those people, and I am aware that in some cases the previous Government used the White Cross Fund for that purpose, rather than drawing it from the national purse whence it should have come.

General Mulcahy

The previous Government never had anything to do with the White Cross Fund.

Mr. Walsh

I contend that the White Cross Fund should never have been used for compensation or for pensions in the way that it was used by the previous Government. That money was collected all over the world for one purpose.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is an Estimate for one year. It has nothing to do with the administration of a previous Government. How far, as alleged by the Deputy, any Government was responsible for the administration of the White Cross Fund, I do not know. I suspect it was not administered by any Government Department.

General Mulcahy

Might I say that the last Government never had anything to do with the administration of the White Cross Fund?

Mr. Walsh

I am sure that they had very much to do with it. I know from what direction the influence came in its administration—I have very good reason to know. I am one of those who claim that it is the duty of the nation to compensate every single one of these people or their dependents, because during that period from 1916 onwards we had very large numbers in this country who took no interest and gave no assistance in the struggle, but religiously minded their own business and waxed fat on the wealth of the country while, as Deputy McCann said, young men gave up their university careers or professions or trades in order to give service to the nation. They gave that service voluntarily. Many of them never looked forward to drawing a pension for the service which they gave. That is the reason why I claim that it is only right that these people should get something to compensate them for the period during which they gave service to the nation. I contend that the giving of pensions is altogether wrong and that it never should have been entertained.

Mr. Kissane

Like Deputy Walsh, I am not greatly enamoured of this pension scheme, because I prefer to see the people who lost relatives in the war of independence being compensated better than they have been and are being compensated. The question of the means test has been referred to by some Deputies. But there is another aspect of the situation having a bearing on the means test that I do not think anybody has yet referred to, and that is that, in the case of people who made claims in respect of relatives who lost their lives in the national struggle, it appears to me that the Department have established a method of assessment of their own. In cases in which I am interested in my constituency I find that the sum of £40 a year is mentioned. In other words, it is impossible for anyone who has made a claim under these Acts to get a gratuity if the income of that person exceeds £40 a year. I look upon that as a great hardship on those people because £40 a year is not a very big sum.

I have even come across cases where people in receipt of the old age pension have been subjected to this hardship of which I am complaining. If the Dáil had never passed this legislation to give compensation to people who made sacrifices during the national struggle, these people to whom I am referring would have been entitled to the old age pension anyway. I submit, therefore, that the old age pension or any such annuity should never be taken into consideration in regard to this assessment that seems to militate against the claims of a good many people down the country. I ask the Minister to go into that particular aspect of the matter. I believe that there should be no means limit and that anybody who lost a relative in the war of independence should be entitled to compensation, because everybody in the House knows that nothing can compensate a family for the loss of a relative. Not alone would I advocate the increasing of this £40 a year, but I would advocate its abolition altogether. There are not many such claims outstanding at present; as a matter of fact my information is that there are only a couple of hundred. I suppose legislation cannot be mentioned in connection with this Estimate but, if legislation is necessary, I think that this House will do well to consider it.

Mr. Meaney

I am fully aware of the magnitude of the job of trying to get finished with these military service pensions and to get all the cases heard and awards made. I am sure that the Minister is as anxious as anybody else to get finished with the job. As to the definition of active service, I am just as well pleased that there is not a cut-and-dry definition. But I put it to the Minister, as there is not a cut-and-dry definition of active service, that in defining active service the board should take into consideration the amount of service rendered by an applicant, including the personal risk that the applicant underwent during his service. I am aware that under the Act men who participated in fights with the enemy are recognised as having had active service. But I am concerned with the men behind the lines and the men on outpost duty who often made such engagements possible. I am alluding to men who kept up communications, and who were often in areas in which there was intense military activity, and incurred as much personal risk as men who were actively participating in the fight. I join my voice with other Deputies in pleading that these men should be considered, so that some recognition befitting their service should be given to those who helped in the fight, but whose service does not, at present, come under the definition of "active service".

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

There were several points raised to-day that I should like to mention, before I deal with those raised on the last occasion that this Vote was before the House. Deputy Hickey raised a question of discrimination against labour election workers. Whatever may have been said in the way that the Deputy suggested, I can assure him that that could not possibly have had any influence in respect of any decision of the board.

Mr. Hickey

I am very glad to hear that.

Mr. Walsh

I think the Deputy has not to be assured of that.

Mr. Traynor

I feel sure the Deputy will agree that neither the Minister nor the Government can control such statements.

Mr. Hickey

The fact is that the incident occurred, and I know men who were not so active in that war who got pensions. I want to be convinced about that.

Mr. Traynor

I am not disputing that the statement may have been made. I am only making it clear that they could not, in any circumstances, influence the decision which the board ultimately came to.

Mr. Hickey

The board may have been dependent on what they heard from commandants and local officers.

Mr. Traynor

The question of the board going on circuit was mentioned. That question was carefully examined and was found impracticable. Deputy Flynn referred to the definition of "active service". That of course is a matter entirely for the referee. The Deputy also raised a question about maps. I would like to refer to that, seeing that Deputy MacEoin raised the same question on a former occasion. It was stated that the maps required by the boards would cost not less than £15. I have gone into the matter, and I find that actually what the referee asked for was merely sketch maps, which would not involve anything more than a mere tracing of the position on ordnance survey maps. The assessing of means or anything like that is not in my control. That is a matter for another Department. I think Deputy Hickey explained that. In reply to Deputy Kissane the question that he feels so keenly about is covered by a clause in the Act, and unless the Act were amended it would be impossible to deal with pensions in any other way than they are being dealt with at present. I am sure Deputies are well aware that three boards were operating in connection with the Pensions Acts, two being exclusively engaged with the Disability Acts of 1932 and 1937 and one exclusively with the Service Act of 1934. It is, therefore, no more correct to assign the total cost of the three boards to the Service Act than it would be to assign the cost of the board which operated in connection with the 1923 and 1927 Acts to the Board of Assessors under the 1924 Act.

Certain figures were given by Deputies during the debate regarding the cost of administering the 1934 Act. It might be well to set out the actual figures. The cost of administration of the Act up to March 31st, 1940, as far as the Pensions Vote is concerned, was £47,632. That does not include salaries of those persons whose remuneration was borne on other Votes. If we include the latter the total cost was £71,282. That sum in itself, of course, is not small, but its size must be viewed in relation to the problem with which it is dealing. The assessors under the 1924 Act had ready at hand the records of the Army post-Truce and, to a large extent, pre-Truce, and where these records were not sufficient the assessors were able to fall back on men whose memories of events and persons were fresh. Now the referee and the advisory committee have no such records to rely upon, but have to build up right from the foundation, and where gaps occur they had not young men with vivid memories of events to rely upon. They had in fact to check, cross-check, and counter-check all the statements, and naturally that involves time and labour as well as expense. There were 21,121 applications under the 1924 Act and of these only 13,537 were referred to the board. The remaining 7,548 were dealt with by the Department. They were clearly applications to which the Act did not apply, and as Deputy O'Higgins mentioned, "were cases that any pay clerk would push one side". The total number of applications under the 1934 Act was 59,308, and many of them—but nothing like 50 per cent. as was suggested—could be ruled out on the ground that they were 1924 Act cases with which the officials could not deal. All these cases had, in fact, to be referred to the referee. They could not be dealt with in the way Deputy O'Higgins suggested. According to Section 3 (3) of the 1934 Act it was necessary that they should be dealt with by the referee.

The board of assessors took four years to deal with 13,537 cases referred to them, and during that period they issued 3,850 favourable reports, costing about £188,585 a year. The referee and the advisory committee have been at work just five and a half years, and have issued to date 7,082 favourable reports, costing about £208,588 a year. In view, therefore, of the grave difficulties which beset the board from the beginning, it is suggested that their output has been creditable, and that the cost of administration has not been unduly high, but, in saying that, I must not be taken as adopting an attitude of complacency, or not appreciating the point urged by Deputies that applicants should know as soon as possible how their cases are going.

The expediting of the work has been one of my chief preoccupations both on the former occasion when I was in the Department of Defence and since I went there as Minister. Since last May, the work of the board has, Deputies are aware, been slowed up by the demand for certain detailed information in respect to activities in brigade areas. In December, I had the work of the board reviewed and, in January, I urged the referee to concentrate on cases which, on their face, were not likely to succeed and to inform the applicants accordingly. The referee and the committee have responded to these representations and, from the 31st March, 1939, to the 31st January, 1940, the referee had confirmed 10,232 non-qualifying reports, but between the latter date and the 31st March, 1940—that is a period of about two months—a further 9,136 reports have been so confirmed. I have every hope, therefore, that the work will be so speeded up that, before this time next year, the majority of the applicants will have some idea as to how their cases are proceeding.

Deputies Norton and Davin asked why a decision had not been come to on cases heard some considerable time back, and they also inquired if anything could be done to expedite decisions in the case of applicants in distress. I have every sympathy with both sets of applicants, and I appreciate the position of Deputies to whom such complaints are made because I, myself, have had to deal with very similar problems and I have not secured any better results than the Deputies who have been complaining. From personal inquiries which I have made on this subject, I find that decisions have not been given because the evidence or verification of the evidence has not been completed and, if a decision were given without the necessary verification, the applicant's claim would be prejudiced. I want, however, to assure Deputies that I am fully aware of the problem and, without making any definite promise as to results, I shall certainly do my best to see if something cannot be done to expedite decisions in such cases. In passing, I may say, in reply to Deputy Davin, that the number of deferred cases is 3,500 and that similar remarks apply to those cases as to the other two categories to which I have just referred.

Questions were asked by Deputies Cosgrave and Norton as to what work was done in connection with the 1934 Act during the year. During the year, 5,047 cases were heard, bringing the total so heard on the 31st March, 1940, to 19,534. Two hundred and forty-three provisional, favourable reports were issued, and 61 appeals on such reports were dealt with. Three hundred and ninety-one favourable reports were made, and 20 appeals made to the Minister and dealt with. Nineteen thousand three hundred and sixty-eight provisional, unfavourable reports were confirmed by the referee and 17,729 notices were issued to applicants, while brigade committees were also so informed. Eight thousand seven hundred and twenty-five final unfavourable reports were also made. The number of appeals under 21 days' notice up to 31st March was 5,576. The figure of 9,000, mentioned during the debate, arose out of a statement which I made that about one-third of the total unfavourable reports would be appealed. As Deputies will notice, to date only 5,576 such appeals have come to hand.

It was alleged during the debate that political discrimination had taken place in the hearing of applications and the making of reports. This is an allegation which is very easy to make but exceedingly difficult to substantiate. Both referees have been judges of the Circuit Court and it is incredible that they would have been influenced by political considerations. It is quite conceivable, of course, that, as Deputy O'Higgins said:

"there are cases where applications were filled in the same house on the same evening, forwarded on the same date, similar engagements right along the line, similar length of service and similar hardships, where one man had got a pension and another had not."

That statement may be quite true but the point is whether, on investigation, the person who did not get an award had his service verified in the same way as the person who did secure an award. In all such allegations, one must make due allowance for suspicion and for a certain degree of jealousy. As regards the allegation that Party agents at election times used promises of pensions as an incentive to vote in a certain direction, I think Deputies will be quite prepared to admit that neither a Minister nor a Government can control that sort of thing.

Deputy O'Higgins—he was supported this evening by Deputy McCann— raised the question of taking discretionary power to commute small pensions by means of lump sum payments. He argued that there was a precedent for such action in the payment of a gratuity under the Disability Acts where the degree of disability in respect of wounds does not reach the minimum of 20 per cent. prescribed by the Acts for the award of pensions. Here it is necessary to distinguish between gratuities and commutation of pensions. Under the Service Acts, there is no power to grant gratuities or to commute pensions and under the Disability Acts there is power to award gratuities, under conditions stated, but there is no power to commute pensions. The two things are, in fact, quite distinct. Commutation implies that a pension was paid or is payable while gratuity connotes that a pension will not be paid. The whole question of commuting pensions has been considered by both the present and the previous Governments and it has also been discussed in this House. After due consideration, neither Government has deemed it fit to take power to commute pensions. The previous Government introduced five Bills dealing with military service pensions but under none of them did they take power to commute, although many pensions of small amounts were payable under the Acts of 1923, 1924 and 1927. In point of fact, there were, under these Acts, 2,914 awards of under £1 a week—231 awards of under 5/-, 1,412 awards of between 5/- and 10/-, 647 awards of between 10/- and 15/- and 624 awards of between 15/- and 20/-. Since 1932 we have introduced six Bills dealing with military pensions and probably for the same reasons which actuated our predecessors, we have not taken the power of commutation either.

Deputy Davin asked if an applicant had a right to obtain an interview with the board. Every applicant for a service certificate has a perfect right if he so desires to appear before the board and make his case. It can be readily understood, however, that where there are several of these applicants, living at very distant points from the city, whose forms show no possibility of securing a service certificate, these people should be informed that their service showed no claim. It would be a hardship, a very great hardship, to bring some of these people from very distant parts of Ireland to the City of Dublin, merely to make an effort to induce the board to give them something to which they were not entitled. As I said a few moments ago, the question of the interpretation of "active service" is one solely for the referee and the Minister has no powers whatever in respect of the interpretation placed on "active service". Deputy Norton asked how much of the £109,514 mentioned in the Estimate for probable additional charges, has reference to arrears. A sum of £91,588 is in respect of arrears.

I think that on this occasion, as far as it was possible, I have gone into all questions raised by Deputies. I can assure the House, that as far as I am concerned, I am taking a very special interest in the question of expediting the investigation of the claims of these applicants. I certainly hope that, in the course of the coming year, there will be very large inroads made on the forms and that when we meet this time next year, while I do not expect that we shall have concluded the investigations of all pension claims, I hope we shall have arrived at the stage where very large numbers of people will, as some Deputies stated in the debate, have been put out of pain.

Vote put and agreed to.