Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 8

Army Pensions Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. There are five Army Pensions Acts which deal with disablement due to Army service and they are the Army Pensions Acts, 1923, 1927, 1932, 1937 and 1941. The purpose of the present Bill is to amend and extend the provisions of those Acts. The Bill amends and extends the Acts in five different ways: (1) By extending the time limit within which disablement caused by disease attributable to service may be eligible for pension. (2) By increasing the rates of pension payable for disablement due to injury received, or disease contracted, during the emergency period. (3) By bringing members of the Army Nursing Service within the scope of the Army Pensions Acts. (4) By making dependents, other than widows and children, of deceased personnel eligible for pensions. (5) By providing special allowances for persons who are in possession of military service certificates under the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924 or 1934 in respect of service during Easter Week, 1916, or who are in receipt of a wound or disability pension in respect of a wound received or a disease contracted during the said week and who, in addition, are incapable of self-support either by reason of age or permanent infirmity of mind or body. Such, briefly and generally, are the five main objects sought to be achieved by the present Bill.

Under Section 10 of the Army pensions Act, 1927, a person suffering from a disablement caused by disease attributable to service was entitled to a pension provided that the disablement was 80 per cent. at the date of examination by the Army Pensions Board, and was contracted before the 30th September, 1924. The Army Pensions Act of 1937 amended this provision in two respects, (a) by allowing the disablement up to the 1st July, 1938, to reach 80 per cent.; and (b) by reducing the minimum percentage eligible for pension from 80 per cent. to 50 per cent. in cases which were refused solely on the grounds that the disablement was less than 80 per cent. at the date of examination by the Army Pensions Board. In both instances, however, the qualification remained that the disease must have been contracted during the period commencing 1st April, 1922, and ending on the 30th September, 1924. In other words, if the disease was contracted after the 30th September, 1924, it was not covered by the Acts no matter how grave the resultant disablement.

The omission in the Acts to cover that period from the 1st October, 1924, onwards has frequently been the subject of adverse comment in this House, but hitherto we have not been able to cover it, because the view was taken that under the sheltered conditions of peace-time soldiering any disease which may have arisen could scarcely be said to arise out of any particular hardship, but would simply be an incident which would have arisen in any circumstances and not necessarily out of Army service. This argument, however, cannot be applied to the conditions under which the Army is serving since the proclamation of a state of emergency. Those conditions, indeed, closely resemble those obtaining during the previous statutory period from the 1st April, 1922, to the 30th September, 1924, and, if anything, the present conditions are more arduous and strenuous. Accordingly, this Bill provides pensions, both disability and married, for disablement due to disease attributable to service when the disease is contracted during the emergency period beginning on the 3rd September, 1939.

This is the effect of Section 3, sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the present Bill. These sub-sections apply the provisions of the 1927 Act to disease contracted during the emergency period, but Section 6 deals with the same subject and applies the extensions of the 1937 Act to all such cases. Under the 1927 Act the minimum degree of disablement due to disease attributable to service had to be 80 per cent. before it could be pensionable, but the Act of 1937 reduced that minimum to 50 per cent. Section 6 also makes the minimum degree to be 50 per cent. for pension purposes. The position, therefore, is that if a person on examination by the Army Pensions Board is found to be 80 per cent. or over disabled due to disease he will be entitled to the rate set out in Parts I and II of Section 3, sub-section (5) of this Bill. If the pension awarded be of a temporary character, and if on subsequent examination he is found to be less than 80 per cent., but at least 50 per cent. disabled, he will be entitled to a final pension of £1 per week, but if, on the other hand, at that first examination he is found to be less than 80 per cent. but at least 50 per cent. disabled, he will be entitled to 15/- a week final pension.

The second feature of this Bill is that it increases the rates of pension payable in respect of disability whether due to disease or injury contracted during the emergency period. The effect here is best shown by the case of a private soldier totally disabled. Under the old rates his pension would be 26/- a week with, in the case of a married man, a married pension of 5/- a week. The new rates will give such a man 42/- a week with, if married, a further married pension of 10/- a week. Both the disability and married pensions for other degrees of disablement are correspondingly increased. In effect the increased rates are virtually those operative under the Army Pensions Act, 1923, which dealt with the active service of that period. Moreover, under the various schemes of compensation for injuries sustained by members of such voluntary organisations as the L.D.F. or the A.R.P. service, total disablement is assessed at 30/- a week with, in the case of a married man, 7/6 a week for his wife and 4/- a week for each child, within a maximum of 72/6 a week including any allowance in respect of loss of earnings. Hence, excluding the payment in respect of earning capacity it will be seen that the new rates of pension payable to a married soldier totally disabled, compare favourably with the allowances payable under the schemes to a married man totally disabled with a wife and three children. These new rates of pension are effected by Section 3, sub-section (5) of the Bill which, it will be noted in passing, only deals with cases occurring during the emergency period thus leaving intact the application of the old rates to cases pensioned before the commencement of the emergency.

Little need be said about the third object of the Bill—to bring the members of the Army Nursing Service within the scope of the Acts during the period of the emergency. The Sisters were previously covered by the Defence Forces pensions schemes which fix pension in relation to service; but they were not covered by the Army Pensions Acts in respect of wound or disease contracted during and arising out of service. It is only just and equitable that the members of the Army Nursing Service should now be afforded the protection of those Acts.

The fourth object of the Bill is to make provision for the dependents of deceased personnel other than their widows and children. The Army Pensions Act of 1923 made provision not only for widows and children of deceased personnel, but also for their dependents, such as their parents and grandparents, together with their brothers and sisters when permanently incapacitated. The Act of 1927, however, which dealt with peacetime conditions, provided only, as far as personnel discharged after 1st October, 1924, were concerned, for the widows and children of deceased personnel; and now in the present Bill we are reverting to the old position under the 1923 Act by providing for the parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, as well as for the widows and orphans of deceased personnel. The Bill, however, differs in two important respects from the previous Acts. In the first place, it provides for more than one allowance in respect of totally dependent relatives, and in the second, it provides an allowance instead of a gratuity to persons who were not totally, but who can be shown to have been mainly, dependent on a deceased person. The allowances provided by the Bill will be £52 a year in the case of an officer, and £26 a year in that of a soldier. These allowances and the conditions appertaining thereto are covered by Section 5, sub-section (5) of the Bill.

Finally, the fifth purpose of the Bill is to deal with the very special problem created by the passage of time and by economic circumstances of men and women who fought during Easter Week, 1916, and who are not incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity. Section 7 applies to every person who is in possession of a military service certificate in respect of service during Easter Week, 1916, or who is in receipt of a disability pension in respect of a wound or injury received or a disability contracted during that week, provided that the person is incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of mind or body and that his or her yearly means from all sources do not exceed a certain sum. For a single man or woman that sum will be £78 a year; if married, £97 10s. od. a year, and for each child the sum is raised by £10 8s. 0d. a year. In other words, if a single person be totally destitute he or she will be entitled to £78 a year, or if married to £97 10s. 0d. a year and £10 8s. 0d. a year will be added in respect of each child. On the other hand, if the person be not totally destitute, but be in receipt of a service or disability pension, his means will be brought up to the scales of allowances mentioned. It will thus be seen that every person qualifying under this section will be entitled from all sources, if single, to 30/- a week, if married to 37/6 a week, and to an additional sum of 4/- a week in respect of each child.

Section 8, 9 and 10 are administrative provisions. In some cases which will fall under this Bill ex-gratia grants have already been made on the understanding that no statutory provision had been or would be made by way of compensation. Now that the cases will be covered statutorily by this Bill, if it becomes law, it is only equitable that power should be vested in the Minister to recover such grants if he deems fit. That is done by Section 8 of the Bill. Again, Section 9 prevents the widow or child of an officer from receiving a double pension in respect of the same bereavement—one under the present Bill and the other under schemes made under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts. Finally, Section 10 is simply intended to relieve the Army Pensions Board of any work which is not strictly of a medical character. As the Acts stand at present, a fairly large volume of work, in which no medical considerations arise, has to be referred to the board, and that reference occupies a proportion of the board's time, which could otherwise be devoted to work of a strictly medical nature. Hence, as we anticipate that under this Bill we shall have a very large number of applications, and as we are anxious that they should be dealt with as speedily as possible, power is being taken not to refer to the board any matter in which we consider that their investigation would serve no useful purpose.

I have no objection to offer to, or no criticism to make of, the main principles of this Bill. In the main, the principal criticism we have had to offer on the Bill is that it is a bit late in being brought forward. These Army Pension Bills are becoming more and more complicated from the point of view of the ordinary Deputy. Any of these Bills standing alone and read by itself is now absolutely meaningless, in so far as these Bills are either amending or extending enactments referring to previous Bills. In the course of the Minister's remarks he told us, with regard to disabilities, that it was decided that disabilities other than wounds arising during a normal period were not and would not be pensionable. I do not know if I misunderstood the Minister because my idea of the previous Acts is to the effect that the Act of 1923 dealt with wounds, that the Act of 1927 dealt with disabilities other than wounds, but disabilities which had to have their origin prior to the 1st October, 1924, that the Act of 1932 extended those two Bills to bodies other than the National Army, and that the Act of 1937 made the disability and wound clauses apply to disabilities and wounds which arose prior to July, 1938. I am now asking the Minister am I incorrect in that or is it incorrect that no disabilities were covered which arose between 1924 and 1938?

Not through disease.

On that particular point, I can see a case for the Departmental point of view. I can see a case can be made but it is a case which I think should not be accepted without very close investigation. It is reasonable enough to say that, in the ordinary life of a soldier in a small army in peace time, any disease which arises, very often would have arisen if he were a civilian. That is true in nine cases out of ten, but it would not apply in the one case out of the ten. Even in that small army in peace times there are occasions of manoeuvres, of exposure and of hardship to which the ordinary civilian has not to submit, and diseases, not very many but certain diseases leaving permanent disability, may arise directly out of a man's occupation as a soldier. The very fact that it is true to state that, in the great majority of cases, that disease might have occurred if the man were never in the Army, does not remove responsibility from the Department for meeting the exceptional case which does arise because of a man's Army service. The exceptional case should be differentiated from the bulk of the cases, not by broad Departmental policy, but by an expert medical board functioning on behalf of the Department.

The Minister's attention during recent years has been called to a certain number of glaring cases where there was no question about the fact that the disability was attributable to service but in which the disability could not be made pensionable because of the Departmental policy. I myself have got a certain number of replies from the Minister's Department, not contesting the fact that the disease arose on service and was attributable to service, but pointing out that these cases were not covered by any existing Pensions Acts. What I have got, other Deputies have got, and if the decision is as now stated by the Minister, that it is the considered Departmental policy that any permanent disability, no matter how grave, arising on service between 1st October, 1924, and September, 1939, clearly attributable to service, should not be covered by pension, then I submit that that decision should be reconsidered, because it is evidently on the face of it an unjust decision—unjust to the individual and unfair to the State. It is unreasonable to say that if a man gets a crippled leg through an injury attributable to service, you will pay a pension according to the scale laid down, but if he gets a crippled leg through disease attributable to service you will pay him nothing. It is unfair to the soldier in so far as it discriminates between individuals equally disabled through similar service, and the disability in each case being attributable to that service. It is really an indefensible policy. It is defensible only on the ground that the majority of cases of permanent disability through disease would have occurred if the individual were never in the Army. The decision ruling in such cases should not be taken by the Minister or the Minister's Department. You have competent people in your service, competent experts who are well qualified to decide which is the isolated case which is clearly and definitely due to service and attributable to it. In those few small number of cases, a responsibility rests on the State just as clearly as in the case of a wound injury.

I would urge the Minister to turn up his own files and also the files of soldiers discharged from the Army, permanently disabled, the board finding that the disease which caused the disability was attributable to service. Yet those men, State cripples, crippled in the State service, unable on account of disability to earn a living, were thrown on the rates merely because the bulk of these disabilities or a great number of them would have arisen if these men were never in the Army. There is, however, a fraction, a percentage, be it ever so small, definitely linked with service and attributable to service and those cases should be met. The sifting machine to discriminate between the ordinary case and the exceptional case should be a board of experts appointed by the Minister.

Section 3 (b) of this Bill—the section extending it to emergency service with regard to married officers and soldiers —covers for pension purposes married officers and soldiers who either occupy married quarters or were in receipt of living-out married allowances. The advisability of that particular clause, in its reference to pensions which will be due to wounds or disabilities during the emergency period, is very questionable. If this Bill goes through in that form, it is as certain as I am standing here that there will be an amending Bill before the emergency is 12 months older. We are getting too many amending Bills, because we are taking not two but 22 bites out of every cherry that relates to the Department of Defence. This Bill will give a pension to the widows and children of officers and soldiers who are on the official married strength, that is, who are living in quarters or drawing official marriage living-out allowances. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are a number of married officers and married men who are not officially married from the point of view of the Department of Defence, in so far as they married after a certain date, when the married establishment was full. Does the Minister say to me that, if one of these officers or men is shot or killed as a result of a military accident, the widow and children will be left absolutely unprovided for? Does not the Minister know that a case will be made here when that arises and that he will bring in an amending Bill which will merely complicate things further and confuse us further, in so far as we will have an Army Pensions Bill, 1944, amending this Bill and half a dozen other Bills that went before?

The place to provide for that is in this Bill, laying down that, if a man is married at the time of his accident or the time of his death, the clauses in this Bill will apply to his widow or his dependents as the case may be. I am taking it that the meaning of this particular sub-section is confined to those officially married, from the point of view of the Department of Defence, and that it excludes those who are married, but not on the Army married establishment. If that is so, I would ask the Minister to consider it in association with this Bill and not adopt the old policy of the Department of Defence—of knowing that a thing will arise, knowing that it will be a grave situation when it arises, knowing that when the grave situation arises a case will be put up which is unanswerable and that it will be met. It is better to anticipate what is clearly in front of you and make provision for it when you have a Bill and not be amending that Bill before it is really 12 months old.

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that there is nothing very contentious in this Bill and, as far as we are concerned, it is gratifying to note that provision is being made for those serving during the emergency. I am very interested in some cases I mentioned during the debate on a a recent Supplementary Estimate. The people to whom I refer are those who, from 1916 onwards, contracted certain diseases—diseases either contracted or aggravated by their service. It appears to me that the Department is altogether forgetting those men. Time after time, Deputies come across those cases of men who served their country during the War of Independence from 1916 onwards and who contracted certain diseases. In a great many cases, because of the exposure and hardship which they endured while "on the run," they have now become almost permanent invalids. Representations have been made repeatedly on their behalf. I myself submitted some applications from time to time. In many cases, two doctors' certificates have been given, but the Minister has turned a deaf ear to all appeals made to him. I would ask him to do something under this Bill to meet cases of that kind. He knows as well as I do the number of such cases in the country.

Not very long ago, I submitted a case to him myself where two doctors' certificates were submitted, but the Minister could only tell me that there was no machinery to deal with it. I ask him, now that this opportunity is provided, to use it to do something for these unfortunate men. They should not be forgotten by the country. I am sure everybody in the country would be very satisfied to know that these men were provided for. As a matter of fact, the men suffered such exposure and hardship during that period, being "on the run" and out at night lying in ditches and fields, that many of them contracted tuberculosis and passed away. These men got nothing from the Government on account of their services. At present, a man who got the slightest wound gets some recognition or pension, or a grant of some kind, but these men got nothing. I am surprised that the Minister— knowing his record as I do, and knowing that he was in intimate touch with these men during those stormy periods —has not taken the opportunity to do something in this Bill for them.

Mr. Byrne

I avail of the opportunity to ask the Minister two or three short questions. The Minister may remember that, about 12 months ago, I asked a question about an old I.R.A. man who was 70 years of age, and who got an old age pension of 10/- and two food vouchers. He drew the pension and food vouchers for a year or two. Shortly after getting his old age pension, he got an award from the I.R.A. Pensions Board sitting at the time. That gave him 10/- or 10/6. He had already a miserable 6/- a week pension from some other Department. His old age pension and the two food vouchers were withdrawn. I asked at that time if that I.R.A. man could have the right to forfeit his 10/- I.R.A. pension so that he could get the old age pension and the two food vouchers. The Minister sincerely said he regretted he had no power to give the man permission to choose the better of the two sums.

This aged man, who served his country in the days gone by, according to his lights, would not be allowed to draw the full amount of his old age pension of 10/- per week, plus the two food vouchers, because he had an I.R.A. pension of 10/-. As a result of that, he actually lost 2/- a week, because he would not be allowed by the Minister's Department to draw the two pensions combined. The means test was applied in his case, and the result was that the unfortunate man was left with only 16/- a week. Now, I was led to believe by the Minister, on a former occasion, that when an opportunity would arise he would try to remedy that state of affairs and see that better terms would be afforded to such unfortunate men, but it would seem that that has not been done.

There is another case with which I should like the Minister to deal, and that is the case of a man who was a serving soldier—I think his name is McElhinney—and who met with an accident while on duty. He was knocked down by a motor-car and received certain injuries, as a result of which he has a short leg. He was discharged from the Army because of his disability, and he took an action at law against the owners of the lorry which knocked him down. I think he got the sum of £300 in compensation as a result of the action he took. Now £300 is a rather small compensation for a man who has been enjoying fairly reasonable pay, but the Government, or the Minister's Department, will not give that man his pension until every 1d. of the £300 is either exhausted or refunded. The man concerned went to law and secured £300 compensation for his injuries, but all that has happened is that the Army Pensions Department benefits by that, instead of the unfortunate man who met with those injuries.

I understand that the Army Pensions Department decided that they would give the man concerned an artificial boot or something like that to help him along, but the boot supplied was of a different colour from the other boot, and it would appear that the Army authorities could not get a boot of the same colour. According to my information, the Army authorities said that they had no funds at their disposal to give this man a brown boot to match his other boot, and I would appeal to the Minister to take up such a matter as that. I think that the Army authorities should not be so niggardly in such cases as these, and that this man should be given his full pension as well as what he is entitled to as a result of the legal action he took. After all, what would £300 amount to? I suggest that it would only amount to about two years' wages on his ordinary scale of pay. It would be exhausted at the end of about two years, at the man's ordinary scale of pay, and, instead of his getting the benefit of that compensation, the result is that the Government has benefited by his action at law. I would put this question to the Minister: Supposing that the man concerned lost his action in court, would the Army authorities have paid his law costs? I am satisfied that they would not. In this case, however, he won his action, and the only people who have benefited by that are the Army authorities.

I have a third case in mind—that of a man who was accidentally shot about five or six years ago. He left a wife and six children, and the ages of the children ranged from, approximately, 11 years down to six months. This, at any rate, is the statement that has been made to me. The man had been a captain in the Army, but when it came to a question of the payment of a pension, his widow was awarded only the pension of a lieutenant—£45 per annum, I think, plus the usual allowances for the children—because her husband had not the required number of years of service as a captain. Now, it appears to me that that is a sad case. This woman and her children had been enjoying a captain's pay during the lifetime of her husband, with the usual standard of allowances for the children of a captain, but when the man concerned is shot, in the course of his duty, the pension she receives is reduced to the standard of that of a lieutenant; and to-day all she can draw is the pension and allowances that would be awarded in the case of a lieutenant. I think that that is wrong, and I would appeal to the Minister to see that when men who served the State, either in the early days before this State was brought about, or who are serving the State to-day, meet with accidents in the course of their duty, whatever awards are made to them should not be deducted from their pensions.

I would refer again to the other case I had in mind—that of the man with the old age pension. I am sure that a number of Deputies in this House must know the man to whom I am referring, and I would appeal to the Minister to look into such matters. On the whole, I think the Minister is taking the right steps to deal with this matter, but I should like him to take further steps to meet such cases as I have mentioned.

This may not be regarded as a contentious measure but, as I have noticed an amendment down here, I take it that the Minister wants to take the Committee Stage of this Bill to-day, and I should like him to leave the Committee Stage over until later.

I am not seeking it to-day.

Very good. The only thing is that, as I saw the amendment there, I thought it was intended to take the Committee Stage to-day and I am glad that that is not intended. What I want to point out is that we have certain defence measures, provisions for pensions for soldiers, and so on, but no clear idea at all as to what standard of life we want to defend in this country, and if we are to judge by this measure the standard of life in this country, then the question arises here again, as it arose before, of what is the use of spending money to defend the State at all if there is not to be a proper standard of life. When a scheme of compensation for civilians who were injured through bombing raids, and so on, was introduced here, the Government laid down a certain scale, such as that a married man, with children, who was permanently disabled as a result of bombing, would get 30/- a week, for the rest of his life, to maintain himself and his wife and whatever family he might have. When that was challenged here, the only answer we got from the Government was that it was as much as the country could afford. Happily, however, a changed outlook on that situation came about as a result of a subsequent discussion in the Seanad, and a further Order was issued, which provided 30/- a week for the man, 7/6 a week for his wife and, I think, something like 5/- a week for each child. Whatever may be the implications of that standard of compensation with regard to civilians, when we look at the measure that is before us now, we find that that standard, apparently, is set up as a subsistence standard for a person who has served his country very well in the past and who is now leaving that service, as a result of accident or disability, and who has no other income or any possibility of earning any other income, to sustain himself and his wife and family. We ought to have an opportunity of hearing from the Minister on the Committee Stage what the background of calculation is upon which it is decided by the State that men who, in the service of the State in a military capacity, become completely disabled and have no chance of an income in life are to be reduced to a position in which they will get 30/- a week for themselves, 7/6 for their wives and 4/- for their children.

There is another aspect of the question of standard disclosed in Part I on page 3 of the Bill. The Minister indicated that officers and men serving in the National Army now were serving under more rigorous and more exacting circumstances than the men to whom the 1923 Army Pensions Act applied, and he is removing the Schedule from the Army Pensions Act of 1927, a Schedule which should never have been in any Army Pensions Act. It was introduced in 1927, and subjected to a very considerable amount of criticism. It was brought in, I imagine, by the rather narrower mind of those people who have to defend the financial interests of the State as distinct from those who have to defend the liberties and lives of the people. It was introduced at a time when the National Army had done its business, when we were entering a period of peace in which people thought that there might never be an army required again, but that there might be a few "chancers" among the men of the old Army who might make demands for disability pensions or pensions of one kind or another, based on service given in the past.

The Schedule in the Army Pensions Act of 1927 contained a provision that a private of the National Army who had become completely disabled as a result of military service and who had a family would get 26/- a week for himself and 5/- a week to keep his family. He was given 31/- per week to keep himself and his family, which was 1/- better than the compensation scheme introduced here originally, but it was nevertheless a proposal which, even in the circumstances of 1927, should never have been made. So far as men are concerned, the Minister is now going back to the Schedule which accompanied the 1923 Act, and, instead of the 26/- a week for the permanently disabled private, there is to be a sum of 42/-, and instead of 5/- per week for the family, there is to be a sum of 10/- per week. I think that even that 10/- per week requires to be examined and explained in the light of our present outlook on social matters.

I come now to the Schedule in which the change in respect of officers is made and I ask the Minister to direct his attention to it. Under the Bill, an officer who is 100 per cent. disabled will receive a pension of 60 per cent. of his annual pay at the date of discharge, or a sum of £120 per annum, whichever is the greater. Under the 1923 Act, an officer who was 100 per cent. disabled got a pension at the rate of £200 per annum. This Bill contemplates circumstances in which, instead of getting £200 per annum, a completely disabled officer will get £120 per annum. If he suffers from 90 per cent. disability, instead of the £180 per annum which the 1923 Act gave, it is contemplated by this Bill that there may be circumstances in which he will get only £108 per annum. If there is 50 per cent. disability, the Bill makes provision for circumstances in which he may get only £60, whereas under the 1923 Act the pension would have been £100 per annum.

It is particularly desirable, when we are dealing with pensions and disability allowances for men who are serving in the military forces to-day, that we here should have a clear idea which will enable us to be satisfied that, if these men are disabled permanently, or to the extent of 90 or 80 per cent., we are making such provision for them that they will not have to go to the poor law system in order to be enabled to exist, not to speak of being enabled to exist with a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, and a feeling that they have an honourable status in the country. It is because I am not satisfied with the whole background which discloses itself here that I suggest that the Committee Stage ought not to be taken until next week, so that all Deputies may have a chance of considering the matter. None of us will be in a position to put forward an amendment which would be acceptable as being in order because it would mean increasing the charge under the Bill.

I, nevertheless, think that every section of the House should face the responsibility now of contemplating the position of the officer or soldier of any rank, permanently disabled or losing his health under the rigorous training which the Army is going through at present, and of satisfying itself that when this amending measure is passed, a standard of compensation is not being set which will leave soldiers in the Army at present uncertain as to whether they can, with a sense of duty and responsibility to their families, risk their health or their lives, and with the feeling that if they do, they will leave their families behind in such a position that they will have to go to the poor law authorities for assistance to help them to eke out an existence. If we allow this occasion to pass without bringing our minds to bear in a concentrated way on that aspect, we are doing a very serious disservice to the State as a whole.

I have in mind a few cases of men who joined the Army for the period of the emergency, and who were discharged disabled, the disability being caused by service. I understand that these men cannot qualify for a disability pension, because, under the Army Pensions Acts, they must have a certain minimum period of service before they can apply. I should like the Minister to examine cases of the kind, with a view to seeing whether the period of service could not be reduced so as to enable men who joined the Army for the emergency, and who were discharged permanently disabled, to qualify for some pension, because otherwise they will be very badly off.

I feel that no Bill that could be brought in or that the mind of man could conceive would satisfy everybody. I have not attempted in this Bill to satisfy everybody, because I know that that would be an impossible task. What I have tried to do in this particular Bill is to make the conditions that I found existing better than they were. When this emergency started and when I was not very long in the Department I found that individuals who contracted disease which arose out of their service and who were discharged from the Army for that reason were not entitled to be compensated and I set out to see what I could do to right what I felt was an injustice. When the unfortunate Glen of Imaal catastrophe occurred I contacted some of the soldiers involved in it and found their cases were very sad cases and I set out to see if it were not possible to better their lot from the pensionable point of view. This Bill represents the efforts which I made in that direction. I never had any illusions that this Bill would meet the demands and desires of all the Deputies. I knew that was impossible. Deputies had been making representations to me in respect to various types of cases, many of which I felt would not come under the present Bill, and I warned the Deputies of that on the occasion of the Supplementary Estimate. I think I said in so many words that Deputies should not regard this Bill as being a cure-all for all the complaints they were receiving. There again I feel that there will be still a large number of people left outside this Bill who will feel that they had a perfect right to be inside it.

Mr. Byrne

Put them in.

It is very easy to say, "put them in." If the Deputy was in my position I wonder how many he would put in?

Mr. Byrne

But you say they are entitled to be in.

I did not say any such thing.

Mr. Byrne

Those were your words a moment ago.

The record will show what I said. I know the Deputy's technique. I know he will twist my words into something which will suit him.

Mr. Byrne

You have just said that they should be in it.

I said no such thing. The scheme of pensions I am putting forward now is very much in excess of anything that has obtained since 1924. Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Mulcahy made a plea that the amounts put forward in this Bill should be increased. I know it is unnecessary to point out that in Deputy Mulcahy's own time the condition of affairs which I am trying now to right existed; that his Government then found the same difficulty that I find and, therefore, he did not find it possible, or the Government of that day did not find it possible to increase the pensions any more than this Government were able to do during the years before the emergency.

I was entirely opposed to the 1927 Act changes.

That may be so. I will not dispute that. The fact remains, however, that such a situation did exist. Deputy O'Higgins was a member of the Government Party at that time, and I do not know if his interest was sufficient to induce him to put any proposition up to the Government of that day with a view to making the conditions any better. A week or two ago I distinctly heard Deputy O'Higgins, in the course of a speech, saying that he never on any occasion adopted the rôle of prophet. On this occasion he has done so. He has assured the House that if we do not alter certain things in this Bill we will have to bring in an amending Bill. I will not dispute the possibility that that may happen. He referred to the fact that already we have had to produce a short drafting amendment. I merely circulated that to-day in order that Deputies would have an opportunity of seeing it and of realising that it was only a drafting amendment; that if this sub-section were not added, certain things could not take place in regard to payments to certain persons under the Bill. But, as I have said, the Bill, so far as I am concerned, represents the best that I found it possible to secure. The extent of the period between my setting out to bring this matter to its present position and the present time is due to the fact that the Bill had to be carefully considered and discussed, and rediscussed, and this represents the result of that consideration and discussion.

The points raised by Deputy O'Higgins in respect to Section 3 (b) are not likely to arise, in my opinion, for the reason that there are very few officers or men who are not on the married establishment. If there are some who are not on the married establishment, then they have not complied with the regulations but they will in time become eligible.

If I am not misinterpreting what Deputy Corish said, I think the cases which he raised are already covered by the 1932 Act. If these people contracted disease during the periods which the Deputy mentioned by reason of their service, owing to lying out in fields or anything else, they had a full opportunity of presenting evidence to the disability pension board, and I presume that they were unable to satisfy the board that the disability from which they were suffering was attributable to service. I cannot say anything more about that.

Deputy Byrne referred to a man who received a pension and was unable to drop some other pension—I think it was an I.R.A. pension. He was anxious to hold on to some other pension.

Mr. Byrne

The old age pension.

Yes. That was the position at the time. I had no control over it. If this man in whom the Deputy is interested is incapacitated at the present moment and can prove that he is incapacitated and unable to work —and I presume he is a 1916 man—then he is entitled to make an application under this Bill when it is enacted.

Mr. Byrne

He is not incapacitated except through old age.

If he comes within the meaning of the Act—and it is possible that he may—he should make his application. If he does so, his lot, I feel sure, will be very much improved.

Would old age bring him within the meaning of the Act?

Incapacity to work will bring him within the meaning of the Act.

From old age?

Mr. Byrne

I will get him to apply.

His old age does not make the slightest difference. I take it he is a 1916 man who gave service to his country and who is now unable to earn his living by reason of the fact that he is incapacitated.

Mr. Byrne

And he will get a greater sum than his old age pension? One will not be balanced against the other?

It will. The means test operates. He will be entitled to £78 if he is single and £97 10s. 0d. if he is married, and that will be subject, of course, to a means test, but if he is far below that amount it will be brought up to the total amount of either £78 or £97 10s. 0d.

Mr. Byrne

The total amount which he receives at the moment is 16/- a week, which includes an I.R.A. pension of 10/-.

He should be well within the Bill.

Mr. Byrne

He is well known to every member of the House. At the moment, I cannot think of his name. He came before our committee.

I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Byrne

What about the compensation cases?

The proposals in the Bill represent the best efforts I can put forward, and, taking the various difficulties into consideration, I think it is a reasonably good Bill.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister has not answered me in regard to either of my other two cases. The widow and children of the captain who was shot by accident are only getting a lieutenant's pension. The other case is that of McElhinney, who was knocked down by a motor car and injured. He got £300 compensation, which the Minister's Department deducted from his pension. They will not give him his pension until that amount is exhausted.

I would require details of the captain's case.

Mr. Byrne

I sent them to the Minister's office within the past month.

I can have them looked into, but it is possibly a case where lieutenant's rank applied because he was an acting captain, or for some other reason. In respect to the other point the Deputy has raised, the Deputy may have raised this matter on former occasions under the other Government but the Act under which that comes is the 1923 Act, and it is one of those things which must continue until the Act is amended. I cannot do anything under this Act.

Mr. Byrne

Please amend it.

Question put and agreed to.

In view of what the Minister says about his difficulties in presenting this measure, could he arrange, for the benefit of the House, to have the Minister for Finance here when we are discussing the financial motion so that the point I make may get some chance of discussion?

I do not think that is a thing I could guarantee.

The House is anxious to give the greatest possible assistance.

Any views expressed by the House will be brought to the notice of the Minister. That is as much as I can promise the Deputy.

The Minister will appreciate how much more satisfactory it would be for the House if we could have the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach here.

Put me through the mill instead of putting them through it.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 11th March.
Top
Share