Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1940

Vol. 81 No. 7

Army Pensions Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Army Pensions Bill, 1940, has been introduced mainly for the purpose of dealing with late applications under Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1932, and Parts V, VI, and VII of the Army Pensions Act, 1937. There are about 515 persons affected in that, for one reason or another, they did not apply within the statutory periods prescribed by the Acts, and as a number of cases appeared to constitute a real hardship, it was decided to introduce the present Bill in order to allow the Department to deal with all such applications.

Accordingly, the present Bill extends the date of application for: (1) Disability pensions, widows' and children's allowances, and gratuities in repect of disablement under Part II of the 1932 Act; (2) disability pensions under Part V of the 1937 Act; (3) aggravatory pensions under Part VI of the 1937 Act; (4) dependent's allowances under Part VII of the 1937 Act; (5) special gratuities under Part VII of the 1937 Act.

The Bill also provides that where any award is made under the date as extended, the pension or allowance shall commence from a date not prior to the passing of the present Bill. While extending the date of application, the Bill amends the previous Acts in certain particulars. Thus, Section amends Section 19 (3) of the Act of 1937 by making clear the original intention of that section that a widow shall not be entitled to a gratuity under Part II of the 1932 Act unless her husband was at the date of his death actually in receipt of a disability pension under the Act of 1932.

Again, Section 11 deals with a problem which has arisen in administering the Acts. A number of persons have been called for examination by the Army Pensions Board and have failed to attend even when dates were arranged to suit their convenience. As the Acts stand at present, there is no power to compel attendance, or, failing attendance, to determine the claim. Such power is now being taken in Section 11 of the Bill, which provides in effect that if the applicant fails to attend after a second notice given after an interval of three months, his claim shall automatically fall for refusal.

Finally, under Section 12, the allowance granted to a widow or child under the Pensions Acts may be reduced by an amount not exceeding the amount, if any, granted to such widow or child under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts.

Mr. Dillon

I have to go away, Sir, to a public appointment, and, therefore, I have asked Deputy O'Higgins to allow me to say a short word before he proceeds to deal with this Bill on behalf of our Party. The short word I want to say is that the parties with which these Military Pensions Bills are concerned would have been deemed to be soldiers in the service of this State who, in fact, served Ireland before the international recognition of our independence, and that is very proper. There are, however, a few old soldiers of the fight for independence who, in their own way, were just as much soldiers as the men of 1916 or the men who took part in the subsequent struggles which led up to the evacuation of this country by the British Government. I am proud, Sir, to claim that I was brought up in and belonged to that constitutional movement in which they served, and I know the sacrifices those men made and the hardships they endured during their services.

It may not be known to many Deputies of this House that one, who is now gone and who was recognised throughout the English-speaking world as the silver-tongued orator, Thomas Sexton, served in the British House of Commons and lived in a tenement room on the Vauxhall Bridge Road because he had not the wherewithal for a better lodging, and although he was the equal of any when he championed the cause of Ireland in the presence of the mighty, when he went home at night he went home to poverty and sometimes even to hunger because he had no money to purchase the luxuries which fortified his rivals in that struggle. He is gone, as most of them are gone, but there still survive a few. One I am thinking of at this moment, who is well on in his 'eighties and who was a Fenian, and, at a meeting in Tipperary, he saw Michael Davitt come to ask the help of the Fenians in the New Departure in order that the tenant farmers of this country might be delivered from slavery. He saw an irresponsible throw a missile at Michael Davitt, and although this man was standing afar off, because he was a Fenian and did not subscribe to the constitutional method of advance, he felt that it was more than any Irishman could bear to see Michael Davitt insulted and assaulted in Tipperary, and he sallied into the fray and rebuked the person who had assaulted Davitt and asserted Davitt's right to speak wherever he chose to open his mouth in Ireland. That began an association which brought to Davitt's ranks the Fenians of Tipperary, and it opened a long life of hard struggle for these men in the cause of Ireland, punctuated by such incidents as taking the chair at the Mitchelstown meeting, and time and time again reflecting glory on this country when he represented it in the British House of Commons, and at other places where he was called on to speak in its name. I remember another man of whom I am thinking now, who defended Ireland and suffered bitterly in her cause. I can think of another man, who is present in my mind at the moment, who saw his colleagues in his profession secure preferment, but who deliberately of his own election, to my own personal knowledge, because it was to my father he made the choice, chose poverty to the profits of his profession, because he said if he were to succeed in it, he must neglect the duties he had undertaken to do in advancing the cause of Ireland when that cause stood badly in need of men to defend it.

These men have grown old. Many of them are dead. All their leaders are gone. They have never made it a practice to ask for anything from anyone. They never got anything from Ireland and never expected anything. They were brought up to believe that it was a privilege to serve Ireland, and that to secure that privilege was sufficient reward for any sacrifice that the service demanded. We have managed to carry on, and to look after those who have fallen by the wayside up to now, and it has been a privilege and a pride to help in doing that. But there comes a time when the limited resources of individuals cannot meet the deficiency and with increasing years, and the financial stringency of which we are all cognisant, I know that one of these men, if I cannot get something for him, has got to go to the workhouse. I would not ask for this if I could get it in any other way. I do not want to suggest that these men have been treated with callous indifference by members of the present Government. They have not. I have no hesitation in saying that I have had help, both on this side and on the other side of the House, to meet the obligations that have arisen in connection with the difficulties to which I have referred. I want that to be clearly understood. It is only fair that it should be.

I make no disguise of the fact that I would prefer not to have been contrained to ask for any financial recognition by the State of these men's services, and but for the stringency that has now come upon us all I should never have had to do this. Nevertheless, I should not let my personal pride stand between these men and the public expression of their rights to the modicum of comfort which they are entitled to expect from a nation they served so faithfully, for the few remaining years they have to live amongst us. One of them, and one of the bravest of them all, died two or three days ago in Limerick. There are very few left, and there are few women who will be widows when they go. I am asking Oireachtas Eireann now to secure these men against destitution. That is all I ask.

I want no gratuities. I want no reward for them. They would not want it. All I am asking is that you will not allow them to go hungry. I do not care how you do that. They are entitled to it. They have not charged me to make this request. There is not one of them who would ask me to do it. I do not disguise that it is not a request that I take any pleasure in making; but, as the son of one who was privileged to lead them at one time, I think it is my duty to do it. I claim it as a right. I ask for no favour. I am not asking for mercy for them from strangers. I am asking for justice from their own.

Provision has been made for every generation of men who served this country since. Do not let it be said that those who are really the veterans because they could not combine in claiming favours are denied justice by those who enjoy the liberty which is the fruit of their labour.

Dr. O'Higgins

I should like if the Minister could give a little more information regarding Section 5 of the Bill. Are you now reducing the disability standard from 80 to 50?

Mr. Traynor

No, the position is that where the degree of disability is reducing from that which obtained when the pension was awarded if it reduces beyond a certain figure the men can go on the flat rate scheme. They could do that before. The disability from which they were suffering might possibly disappear altogether. They can opt to go on the flat rate scheme, that is a pension which would be equivalent to 20/- a week for disability between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent.

Dr. O'Higgins

If it has been once over 80 per cent. and if that drops they can go on.

Mr. Traynor

Yes. It is possible when a man was originally examined the degree of disability would be 80 per cent. or over, but through treatment the degree of disability begins to decrease. If it decreased below 50 per cent. and disappears, the man's pension disappears with it. This is providing for a flat rate system of 15/- or 20/- which he can opt to take before he reaches that position.

Dr. O'Higgins

I may say straight away that I have no objection to the Bill, and I am not offering any opposition, but I put it to the Minister that he is really trying to carry out an impossibility through the medium of an administrative machine and a multiplicity of medical boards. He is endeavouring to deal in terms of percentages, to assess the degree of disability from which a person is suffering whose disease originated 18 to 25 years ago. With all due respect to the Minister, and also to the members of my own profession, there is not a doctor living, or a board of doctors, which could examine a man to-day who is suffering from a disability acquired on service 18 or 20 years ago and, in the first place, say dogmatically, that that disability was or was not attributable to the service of twenty years ago, and further say dogmatically, that that disability is between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. and not over 80 per cent. nor under 50 per cent. To a great extent, this Pensions Bill and the Disability Pensions Act of 1927 hark back to the Wound Pensions Act.

In the Wound Pensions Act applicants were pensioned according to the degree of disability resulting from wounds. Neither a medical board nor a lay board would have any great difficulty in putting into figures the disability a man suffers as a result of a wound. There is a simple table of disabilities and even those not mentioned in the table could easily be assessed by reference to it. The loss of an upper limb, a lower limb, of two upper or two lower limbs, the loss of one eye or of both eyes—each carried a certain percentage of disability, and other wounds and other disabilities as a result of wounds could be, in a rough and ready way, brought on the level of one of those scales.

We then moved on from wounds to disease and we attempted to pension people for disabilities as a result of disease attributable to service, on the percentage scale. At the time that Act was passed, if it was not an impossible proposition for a medical board, it was about as difficult a proposition as could be set. However, there is this to be said: at the time that Act of 1927 was passed, they were dealing with disabilities attributable to disease which had been acquired within eight or nine years previous. This is an amending Act, or an extending of that Act of 1927. Roughly, 515 cases did not apply within the time limit of the 1927 Act, or the extending Act of 1932, and we are now giving a further 12 months for these 515 cases to apply. They will apply. They are suffering, presumably, from some disability attributable to disease which originated on service possibly 18 years ago, possibly 25 years ago. They are going to be medically examined by a board, and the first question that will be put to that board is this: that man is suffering from a certain disease; is that disease directly attributable to service, 15, 17 or 25 years ago? There will be an answer—either yes or no. It is a matter of luck more than anything else: it is a matter of mood—the mood of the board on that particular morning—as to what the answer will be. But no definite answer, either yes or no, can be given with any real knowledge or foundation in fact behind it.

Most of these difficulties arise through administrative delays in dealing with these cases at a time when the origin of the disease was comparatively recent. I urged time and again that, if one board could not get through the work more expeditiously than it has been done, there should be a multiplicity of boards. My attention has been called to a considerable number of cases of people either dissatisfied with the verdict given or who have got no decisive answer to their claims, and I have put the case to them that I am putting here. You can bring up a case to-morrow of one who suffered from a lot of hardship on the hills, or in imprisonment or internment, in 1918, 1919 or 1922. That man has a bad chest now, or bad state of nerves. Where is the member of my profession who is going to claim that he is in a position to assess definitely whether that man's bad chest or nerves are attributable to conditions 18 years ago? Yet, people are either getting pensions or being refused pensions on the certificate of specially selected and experienced men—honest, reliable and trustworthy men who, if their backs were to the wall, would say that too many years have passed and that too much water has flowed under the bridge, for them to be definite.

I handled the documents of a case within the last 48 hours which was examined some four years ago. This man got his certificate to the effect that he had no disability attributable to service, and the service he was hanging his alleged disability on was 18 years ago. That man was able to mobilise immense influence in his case, such that only one in 5,000 applicants could mobilise. He was re-examined—"reboarded"—some three years ago and the result of that "re-board" was that he had a disability attributable to service, but that it was not 80 per cent. Whatever disability he had three years ago he had before that. He had the same medical document saying that he was continuously from 1922 to 1927 in medical hands. One board finds no disability attributable to service and the other finds a disability attributable to service 18 years ago, but not 80 per cent. They were both reliable, trustworthy and honourable boards, but is it right to be administering or refusing public funds with that margin of error?

Is there an engineer who would look at a building in 1940 and assess its condition in 1916? That is the kind of question that is being put to medical boards. There may be an answer given to satisfy the official mind, but there could not be an answer given that would satisfy the knowledgeable mind. The point I wish to make is that, if cases have been left unattended, unexamined, "unboarded", we are trying to achieve the impossible now and trying to get a board to assess whether the disability a man has to-day was or was not attributable to some experience, some hardship of his, 20 years ago. I think it would be better to link up the whole thing with service and, if the service board has already found, as a result of investigation and evidence, that a man did give service of a lengthy and reliable kind, to increase his service pension by a reasonable percentage and accept his "crockiness" as having been at least associated with service.

I remember that the wording of the original measure was about as rigid a wording as was ever put into an Act, namely, that the disability must have been acquired on service and be directly attributable to service. Now, these words were stolen from the Wound Pensions Act. It is easy enough to say whether a wound was acquired on service and was directly attributable to service, but, even dealing with cases of three months ago, it is impossible to say, with equal definiteness, that pneumonia was acquired on service and was directly attributable to service. You have no witness who can come forward and say: "I saw the bug of pneumonia enter his chest and he was on service at the time," but you can bring witnesses forward to say: "I saw him hit with a bullet." You cannot bring witnesses forward to say: "I saw him hit with the bacilli of tuberculosis or the germ of pneumonia."

In its very origins, a major blunder was made when you tried to work the phraseology of a Wound Pensions Act into a diseases Act. It was a mistake at the time when you were dealing with a matter that only went back five or seven years. It was a blunder then, but it is a blunder on the double and on the treble now when you are presuming to deal, in an official way, with cases that may be 25 years' old. It cannot be done. If there are hard cases to be met, and if public money has got to be spent, do not give it the appearance of being spent in a rigid watertight way, in conformity with the most rigid phraseology that could be invented by the most vigilant Department of Finance because there is no one, from the Minister down to the actual board, and from that down to the applicant himself, who can say with any definiteness that any disease disability from which any man suffers to-day was attributable to any particular phase of activity 18 or 20 years' ago.

I would rather see the Minister put his mind down to the justice of what I am saying. I guarantee that if the Minister calls his medical advisers before him he will find there is not one of them but will agree absolutely with every word I am saying: that it is correct to say they are being set an impossible question to answer reliably. They are giving the best answer they can. It may be a good answer from the applicant's point of view, or it may be a bad answer. The answer depends as much on the mood of the examiner as it does on any evidence he can have before him to-day.

Now that is not fair, either to the State or to the applicants. It would be better to take these arrears of cases— take the cases that have not yet been dealt with, take the cases that have a disability swinging between one percentage and another, take the association between that disability without any of us attempting to say whether it is a 40 per cent., a 45 per cent. or a 51 per cent. disability—and say that there is reasonable evidence, that there is a reasonable amount of medical certification to demonstrate that a man's disability could have been attributable to such a period of service and because of that "increase his service pension". If I were in the Minister's position, if I were giving disability pensions now under this Bill or under the Acts of 1932 or 1927, and found that those disease disabilities were hanging around and harped back to service and hardships undergone in 1916 or in 1917, I could not look into a mirror, address myself and say: "Conscientiously I am entitled to give that, or conscientiously I am entitled to refuse that." One might as well take a coin in his office when each claim came in, toss it, and say: "Heads I will get a pension and harp I will not." Now, that is not a proper system for dealing with cases of disability and cases of genuine hardship. It would be better to mobilise all your applicants, get them together, and decide to do the best you could for them out of some lump sum; but do not perpetuate the mistake of pretending that there is any board that could be created that is capable of assessing, in percentage degrees, the disability that any man is suffering from to-day, and say, further, that that disability is directly due to disease which was acquired 22, 24 or 26 years ago.

Mr. Davin

I am prepared to support a hurried passage of this Bill through the House, by my vote if necessary, if we can get an assurance from the Minister for Defence that it will be the means of speeding up the administration of the many disability and service Acts passed by the two Governments we have had in this State during the last 17 years. The Minister indicated that this Bill was being introduced for the purpose of meeting 515 claims. Are we to take it that all these claims have been closely examined departmentally, and that the Minister is prepared, when this Bill becomes law, to sanction the payment of pensions in these 515 cases?

Mr. Traynor

We are simply estimating that about that number will be likely to apply under this extension.

Mr. Davin

I take it that the Minister has gone into these cases in detail, and that he is fairly satisfied that the 515 should be provided for——

Mr. Traynor

They will all have to be examined.

Mr. Davin

——or any additional number there may be as a result of amendments made to the Bill, or of representations to the Minister arising out of its passage. I should like to hear from the Minister the reason why payment in the 515 cases referred to will only operate from the date of the passage of this Bill. If they are genuine cases, arising out of past service, I think they should receive the same treatment as the other thousands of persons who already benefit by the many Acts passed during the last 17 years. I understand—I am speaking from memory and not from accurate figures given to me recently—that about 12,000 persons are benefiting by the service and disability pensions Acts passed during the last 17 years. I remember sitting here a number of years ago, and hearing a Minister for Defence in the previous Government, who is now a member of the other House, saying that, in his opinion, not more than 3,000 persons could be given credit for having taken an active part in the pre-Truce activities, whereas we have four times the number now in receipt of service and disability pensions.

I mention these figures because I agree with the moving appeal made by Deputy Dillon, which, if accepted by the Minister and his colleagues, would add only six or eight persons to those who should be given credit by way of pension or gratuity for service rendered to the country. I support the appeal made by Deputy Dillon, and I recognise that he speaks with considerably more authority and knowledge on this matter than I could, but I have personal knowledge of three cases of members of the old Irish Parliamentary Party who are at present in a destitute or semi-destitute condition. I know that representations, and detailed statements in support of representations, have been submitted to some of the Minister's colleagues, and I should like to hear what action he proposes to take to meet the very reasonable and moving appeal made by Deputy Dillon on behalf of these six or eight persons. I understand that nearly all, if not all, of them are over 70 years of age.

Nobody, in my opinion, can speak with greater knowledge or authority based on experience than Deputy O'Higgins can in the case of persons claiming disability pensions, and nobody will disagree with the case he has made here. As a Deputy with a very limited knowledge of the administration of the existing Pension Acts, I should like to see inserted in the Bill a more understandable definition of "active service". The administration of the 1934 Service Pensions Act is a disgrace to the present Administration. I have come across cases of individuals who were in the same engagement who have been treated differently in regard to claims for service pensions. I know of cases of persons who made claims under the 1934 Act and who were before the Service Pensions Board in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, and who are still waiting and hoping for some decision on their claims in the near future. If the passage of this Bill will help to make up the mind of the Minister and those who advise him in respect of the hundreds of cases of claims which are deferred, everybody in the House who has any experience of dealing with communications from these persons will be glad to support the hurried passage of the measure.

There is no justification whatever for a position in which individuals who appeared before the Pensions Board in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938 should be still waiting for decisions on their claims. Some of the cases I have come across are cases of men who were in the same engagement as men who have been receiving pensions for two, three and four years. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurance in regard to these cases which are still awaiting decision and that, before the end of 1941, that is, 18 years after the first Pensions Act was passed, we shall have heard the last of the claims of those who are entitled to look for either disability or service pensions, arising out of their service to this country in pre-Truce days.

Mr. Norton

I think the Minister must realise that the administration of an Army Pensions Bill providing for the payment of pensions on an assessment of wound or disease disabilities is very difficult, particularly as the board is set the task of ascertaining, under the rigid phraseology of the earlier Acts, whether the disability from which an applicant suffers is attributable to or arose directly out of his active service over 20 years ago. Deputy O'Higgins, with his wealth of medical knowledge and extensive military experience of a kind that brought him into close contact with cases of this type, has made a very convincing case for an amendment of the Act, or, at all events, for an alteration of the method of administering it; but although he has made a very convincing case on medical grounds, it really does not require medical knowledge to realise that it is almost impossible, in 1940, for any board of doctors to ascertain, with any degree of reliability, whether a disability from which a man suffers to-day was attributable to and arose directly out of his active service 20 years ago. As Deputy O'Higgins rightly pointed out, the decision which the board will give on a question of that kind is just a matter of chance, and no matter how zealous doctors may be and no matter how they may desire to be microscopically fair, it is almost impossible, in the circumstances obtaining and having regard to the passage of time, for them to pronounce authoritatively on an issue of that kind.

Of course, the fact that such an impossible task is set the board of doctors has been responsible for the abnormal delay which has taken place in deciding claims for disability pensions. One case which came to my notice some considerable time ago, and on which I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the Department, relates to the claim of a man who contends that, arising out of his treatment while under arrest by Black and Tans in 1921, he now suffers, and has since that time suffered, from a chest disability and a neurasthenic condition. That man has made claim after claim for a disability pension to the medical board. He has produced what at first sight looks to be convincing evidence from local doctors who knew that he underwent this ill-treatment, who knew him before he was arrested, who knew him after he was arrested and who know the change brought about by his imprisonment and ill-treatment by Black and Tans; but notwithstanding the evidence of these local doctors who were in a position to say that they attended him after the event, that man for years and years has been seeking a decision on his claim for a pension, and it is not possible for him to get it. The reason, of course, is that the doctors to-day are not in a position to certify with any certitude that the man now suffers this disability arising out of the treatment he then underwent.

With Deputy O'Higgins, I think that you have now got so far away from the period of active service, a minimum of 17 years, that you must realise that it is extremely difficult for a medical board to be able to certify with any definiteness that a disease was attributable to active service and arises directly out of such service. I think that, in dealing with disability pensions, the Minister might amend the Act either here or in the Seanad in such a way as to give the board a fairly wide discretion to do as Deputy O'Higgins suggested—to ascertain, in the first place, whether there was definite active service; if there is fairly convincing evidence that, as a result of that active service, the man's physical condition has been impaired, the board should have some discretion to award a basic pension in respect of service and a supplementary pension in respect of disability. I hope the Minister realises the difficulty in the way of the applicant for a disability pension.

Everybody wants to be fair to those who have suffered disability due to active service and we must realise the enormous difficulties caused by the fact that we are endeavouring to assess disability almost a quarter of a century after it has occurred. I am afraid we have set the board an impossible task. With Deputy O'Higgins, I appeal to the Minister to review the administration of the Act and give the board pretty wide discretion in assessing disability due to disease. It is easy enough to assess disability due to wounds and it is easy enough to ascertain if the wound was inflicted during active service but, as pointed out by Deputy O'Higgins, it is quite impossible to say now, with any degree of accuracy, whether the disability from which the man is suffering and in respect of which he claims a pension arose directly out of his active service over 20 years ago. I think that the Minister himself ought to be glad to see the end of those claims, but I think we are laying out a great deal of trouble for ourselves and not reflecting any great credit on our legislative or administrative measures if we set a board the task of ascertaining whether a disability now being endured by a man was contracted while on active service over 20 years ago. I hope the Minister will be able to say that he realises these difficulties and that, whether by amendment of this Bill or administrative Act, the board will be given wider discretion in assessing disease-disability in the future.

Mr. Traynor

All I can say in respect of the speech made by Deputy Dillon, with which I have much sympathy, is that I shall bring it to the attention of the head of the Government and see if it is possible to do anything on the lines suggested by the Deputy. I should like to remind the House that this is merely a Bill extending the period during which persons can claim disability pensions. I should also like to point out that every case under the 1932 Act has been dealt with. The 1932 cases have been wiped out completely and the only cases left over are those which come under the 1937 Act. I am informed that they will be dealt with not later than the middle of March, so that the work of this board has been expeditious, considering the vast amount of information it was necessary to secure from applicants from time to time. I do not contest for a moment the technical or professional statements made by Deputy O'Higgins. They may be perfectly correct, but I am certain that the case he made was made when the Bill was originally introduced and, again, when the amending Bill was introduced in 1937. I am sure that the case was then examined and considered from every possible point of view. The medical men who are examining these cases do not attempt to find out the degree of disability at the period when the wound was received. They could not do that.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am not talking about wounds; I am talking about disability due to disease.

Mr. Traynor

Even in the case of disease, that is not the case. When the applicant attends before them, they endeavour, to the best of their ability, to ascertain (1) if the disease is attributable to service, and (2) the degree of disability.

Dr. O'Higgins

No. 2 is easy; No. 1 is the trouble.

Mr. Traynor

Beyond that, it is true to say, they cannot go; but I have found, from my experience in examining the decisions of the board, that they have always been very generous. I find that they are always inclined to err in favour of the applicant, and to give him the benefit of any doubt that arises.

Dr. O'Higgins

None of us is criticising the board.

Mr. Traynor

I am merely pointing out that the board leans in favour of the applicant, if it leans in favour of any party. The applicant, in making his case, is encouraged to bring forward evidence dealing with the period when the disease originated or the wound was received. For instance, certificates have been accepted from medical men giving it as their opinion that the disease, at the time when it was contracted, was the result of active service. Wherever that type of evidence was brought before them, the board accepted it after discussion with the medical men concerned, if available, and if not available, after other inquiries. Large numbers of applicants have brought forward voluminous evidence of that kind from different medical men, and, so far as I know, that type of individual has nearly always had his case successfully dealt with. The 1937 Bill was, as Deputies are aware, brought in to help applicants still further. Where a man had a disease which was not attributable to military service, but which was aggravated by military service, that was taken into consideration also, and he got a pension, an aggravatory service pension.

Dr. O'Higgins

Could the Minister name any disease which would not be aggravated by it?

Mr. Traynor

I cannot do that——

Dr. O'Higgins

I cannot either.

Mr. Traynor

——but it is quite possible that there might be certain diseases which would not be aggravated by service. I am not saying whether they could or could not, but if there was any disease which was aggravated by service it was taken into consideration. Needless to remark, I have as much sympathy as any other Deputy in the House with the cases of those applicants. As a Deputy, I took a great interest in trying to press forward several of those claims made by old I.R.A. men. I had one experience myself where the board convinced me that, although the disease did appear to arise out of service—I was trying to prove that I knew this man to have been a very healthy and strong type of man—the disease of which this man died was hereditary, and that if there never had been any trouble in this country he would have died almost precisely at the time he did die. I was not in a position to dispute such a statement with the medical officers, and I do not know if Deputy Dr. O'Higgins could have disputed it either. The fact remains that I was more or less convinced that here was a case where, although there was a certain amount of convincing evidence that the disease could have arisen out of service, it was proved to me anyhow to be a type of disease which would have arisen in any case, and would eventually have brought about this man's death.

On the flat rate question I should have mentioned that that has been operating for years, and that this was merely extending the time. As I mentioned in the beginning, there are practically no unboarded cases. There are just a few which came under the 1937 Act, but the 1932 applications have been completely cleared off. Those people who are coming in now, the 515 people whom I mentioned, are people who did not apply within the statutory period. Deputy Davin urged that those people should be entitled to receive pensions, as the other people did, from the beginning. I would contest that, because those people either did not consider themselves as having a disability, or for some other reason decided to ignore this particular statute and did not make any attempt to apply. They have changed their minds now, and are coming in and making applications. We feel that in justice to them their cases should be examined, and, arising out of the large number, we are asking the House to agree to an extension for 12 months for this particular type of individual.

Mr. Davin

Are they only applying now?

Mr. Traynor

They did not apply within the statutory period.

Mr. Davin

But they applied shortly after it?

Mr. Traynor

It might be any time after. I cannot mention any particular period, but they certainly did not apply within the statutory period. In fact the applications are even coming in yet. I do not think there are any other questions which I have to mention.

Dr. O'Higgins

Would the Minister mind if I put a question before he concludes? There is a point on which I want information. Under this Act, pensions are given to people who are disabled as a result of disease. Take the case of a person boarded, where the decision is that he has a disability attributable to service, but that that disability is not up to the 50 per cent. which entitles him to a pension. That disease is a progressive one; in other words, it is becoming a little bit worse each year. Could that man apply during the following year for another board, and in the year after that for another board?

Mr. Traynor

I do not think so.

Dr. O'Higgins

But does not the Minister see that there is something wrong there?

Mr. Traynor

He could apply only within the extended period.

Dr. O'Higgins

The application must be within the extended period. But take a case of chronic rheumatism, rheumatoid arthritis; the board may find that that rheumatic condition is attributable to service, we will say, last year, but that the applicant is suffering from it only in the fingers, that he is only 20 per cent. disabled, and is therefore not entitled to a pension. But the disease is progressive, and next year or the year after every joint may be locked up. Could that man then apply for another board?

Mr. Traynor

No. If he was only 20 per cent. disabled he would be entitled only to a gratuity.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister is referring to the Wound Pensions Act. I am referring to the Disability Pensions Act.

Mr. Traynor

He would not be so entitled.

Dr. O'Higgins

He would not be entitled to a pension on the first examination because he is only 20 per cent. disabled, but the board has found that his disease is attributable to service. I am putting a case where the disease is a progressive one, where it has been found to be attributable to service, where every month the applicant is a bit worse, and where two years later he is completely bedridden. Could he reapply for another board?

Mr. Traynor

No.

Dr. O'Higgins

Well, there is something wrong.

Mr. Traynor

He cannot apply if the period exceeded 12 months.

Dr. O'Higgins

I know the Minister's answer is correct, but there is something wrong. There is something that needs amendment before we finish with this.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why not give the board power to adjourn the case for 12 months, and bring the applicant up every 12 months to see how he is getting on?

Dr. O'Higgins

Under the British administration they allow a man a new board every 18 months if there is evidence that his condition has worsened.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why not give the board power to hear the case in 12 months' or two years' time? Let the board themselves decide that they will examine the case again in 12 months' time.

Dr. Hannigan

On the point raised by Deputy O'Higgins, the Minister's attitude would be understandable if the assessment were made not so much on the basis of the present stage of the disease, but having regard to the fact that it is a progressive one, and will develop as time goes on, but, if the position of affairs as laid down in the Bill is that a person suffering from a progressive disease due to service will be awarded a pension calculated on the stage which a disease had reached at the particular time, then that is a manifestly inequitable basis upon which to make the assessment.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th January, 1941.