Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1943—Money Resolution.

I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend and extend the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1941.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Unless the Minister has anything to say on the subject of the married pension which was discussed here on the Second Stage, I am opposed to the passing of this Resolution. If a man were in receipt of unemployment assistance and had a wife and five children, he would receive, in addition to his basic allowance, a payment of 12/6 per week and also food allowances averaging 14/- per week. He would receive 12/6 in cash and 14/- in bread, milk and butter—a total of 26/6, in addition to his basic unemployment assistance allowance. We are here making provision for men who are injured in the service of the State as soldiers serving to defend all that we have here, and this Bill provides that if an officer is injured and suffers 100 per cent. disablement, that is, if he is completely unable in a permament way to provide for his own subsistence and that of his family, he gets a basic payment for himself, if he is single man, and he gets £30 a year, if he is a married man, to keep his wife and any family he may have. If he is a private or non-commissioned officer, he gets 10/- a week, in addition to his basic rate, as a married pension to keep his wife and family.

A Bill which approaches the debt which this country will owe to men who give their ability to earn their own living to the extent of 100 per cent. and who find themselves in a condition of 100 per cent. disablement from the angle of telling these men: "We will give you a basic amount for yourself, and, if you have a family, we will give you 10/- a week," is an insult to all we have been working for in the past. It is utterly out of keeping with the way in which the ordinary people look on the Army and on the services which they realise the Army are prepared to render to them; it is utterly out of keeping with the whole outlook of our people on social conditions for the future; and it is entirely out of step with what other people, caught up in much more difficult circumstances throughout the world to-day, are thinking. I want to put that simple position at this stage.

The Government have repeatedly indicated with regard to people in receipt of unemployment assistance that they give them a certain amount which is not intended to keep them entirely in comfort, and yet a man on unemployment assistance would get 26/6 per week to keep a wife and five children, while we offer 10/- a week to a 100 per cent. disabled Army soldier or sergeant. Apart altogether from decently providing for the wife and children of a man who gives all his physical and perhaps his mental capacity in the service of the country, there is the question of justice in the mind of the man who is reduced to these conditions simply because he serves his country. How can we think that we are in any reasonable or adequate way providing for the case of an unfortunate man of that type, when, on top of the physical incapacity and the suffering arising from it, we put the mental torment of seeing his wife and family so inadequately provided for?

I do not think any section of the House will agree that the Bill adequately provides for them, and I again ask the Minister if that is not such a blot on the Bill that the Bill is not worth passing, for I am perfectly satisfied that there is no claim implied in any section of it that cannot and could not wait until this Parliament gets clear in its mind as to what is the necessary adequate provision which should be made for the wife and children of a man who suffers disablement as a result of service in the Army in defence of the country in present circumstances. Unless the Minister can indicate that he proposes radically to change that position, I am definitely opposed to the passing of the Resolution, and to the voting of any money for any of the purposes in the Bill, because from the point of view of the Army man and the point of view of our outlook on social matters generally, this is the overriding consideration.

It is very refreshing, to me at any rate, to hear Deputy Mulcahy talking in the tone in which he has been talking here to-day, because he did not talk in that tone when he was a member of a Government himself, and when the people, about whom he is talking so reverently to-day, were receiving only half the amount that I am proposing to give them. It makes me feel that the Deputy might be concerned with something more than the interests of the people about whom he is talking, and that it might be possible that the prospect of an election in the near future might have something to do with what he has been saying now. However, I want to point out to the Deputy that when he was a member of the former Government the rates were exactly half the rates that I am now proposing to give to these people. At that time the rate for a married person was 5/-, which I am now increasing to 10/-. The rate for an officer, at that time, was £20, which I am now increasing to £30, and the rate for private soldiers, who were injured or incapacitated as the result of disease or injury has been increased from 26/- to 42/-. As far as I am concerned, I am not prepared, at this stage, to go any further than I have gone. I think that this Bill is a generous gesture. It may be that, at some later stage, some other Government—possibly Deputy Mulcahy's National Government, which, presumably, is to include all the best brains in the House—may be able to do something more. If that should happen, then I hope that Deputy Mulcahy will honour the statements that he is making now, but so far as I am concerned, this is the best that I can do.

I have no answer to give the Minister with regard to my past or my present, other than the one I gave on the Second Reading, and I am quite prepared to have the Minister say that I am a hypocrite and a humbug.

I have not said that.

No, the Minister has not said that, but I am quite prepared to hear him say it. The real point is that I consider it to be my duty to stand up here and ask whether the members of this House—even the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who say "hear, hear" to the Minister's remarks—will stand up in an Irish Parliament and defend the addition of 10/- a week to the basic pension that is payable to a single man without making any distinction in the case of a married man with a family. You give a basic rate for a single man, but in the case of a married man you are proposing, under this Bill, to give an additional 10/- a week to enable him to keep his wife and family. I think that Parliament has a duty to say what is the standard that it considers the wife and children of a person who has given his complete physical capacity in the service of this country should be, and I would ask whether there are any members in this House who have any opinions on that matter.

The point at issue, Sir, is that it is considered sufficient to give a married man 10/- a week—a man who has suffered 100 per cent. disability in the service of his country—to enable him to maintain his wife and children, whereas the man who did nothing at all for his country —the person in receipt of unemployment assistance, for instance—has an allowance of 26/6. All you have to do is to ask yourself whether that is equitable or not, and do not mind what some other Government did.

Is the Deputy aware that the combined figure will be 52/-?

All right, I will grant you the 15/-.

I said that the combined figure amounts to 52/-.

Very well; I shall take the Minister's figure, but are you satisfied to give only that amount to the man who served his country, while giving 26/6 to the fellow who did nothing except scratch himself on a wall for the last two or three years and who did not go into the Army to serve his country?

How does the Deputy know whether or not that man was fit for service?

All right, but let us take the case of the fellow who was fit for service.

Perhaps, such a man might have offered his services, but might have been found to be unfit, and the Deputy is not aware whether he did or not.

Accordingly, then, that is the policy: the man who offered his services to the country will not get this, whereas others, who did nothing for their country, can draw this amount of money.

I want to know, Sir, whether this House calls itself an Irish Parliament, and whether it has appealed to the young men of this country to join our Defence Forces in order to defend this country against the serious military dangers which, from time to time, the Government tell us are in front of us. Did they tell these young men that if, in the service of the country, they lost their physical capacity, their wives and families would be looked after, and that there would be an addition, to the basic provision of 10/- a week, to enable such a man to keep his wife and family? For goodness sake, cannot we approach these matters in a serious way?

I should like to. That is what I am anxious about, but I do not think we are doing it.

I agree with that, particularly when we have had no case made from the Government side as to what they have based this figure of 10/- on, or £30 for an officer. Even if the Minister does refer to the past, I think it should be borne in mind that he is now putting the married pensioner in the same position as a married pensioner stood under the 1923 Bill. In that connection, it must also be remembered that the cost-of-living figure for all items, in October, 1923, was 186, whereas, in November, 1942, the figure was 273—an increase of almost 50 per cent., and an increase of one-third in the matter of food alone. These, however, are matters which refer to the past, but I think that when we have a Bill such as this before us—a Bill which purports to indicate a standard of adequacy for the maintenance of the families of men in the Defence Forces who lose their capacity to earn their own living—it is a matter that we ought to discuss in this House, and discuss it in relation to the conditions that exist to-day and that may exist to-morrow.

Surely, the Minister must admit that if he is only allowing 10/- for a married man with, perhaps, four or five children, he cannot be having any regard at all for the family. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that, undoubtedly, it is time for us to decide as to what regard we have for the family. If those people go out and risk their lives in the service of their country, and come back 100 per cent. incapacitated, I think it is scandalous that this House should offer them 10/- a week in addition to what they have got. I think the Minister should reconsider the matter and see what can be done. I think the time has arrived when we must state how much we think the family should have to maintain it in decent comfort. If we do not consider the family, then we cannot talk about considering anything else in this country. I think the Minister should reconsider this matter and see what further provision can be made.

I should like to know whether the Deputies to whom we have been listening will, as usual, when the Budget is introduced, go into the Lobby and vote against it as an intolerable burden? Will they, as usual, when every item is discussed, go into the Lobby and vote against it, saying that there is not enough money to meet it? That is the inconsistency to which I object. I was rather amazed to see members of the Labour Party going into the Lobby to vote against income-tax, which would be used to meet the cost of social services.

If this is the attitude of the Government and of the Government Party, then I will vote against spending £8,000,000 on the Army, because there is nothing worth defending in a country that can only offer this sum to the unfortunate wives and children of soldiers who were completely disabled in the service of their country. It is nonsense and sheer futility to be spending £8,000,000 on the Army in those circumstances.

I have as much sympathy with those men as the Deputy, but the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. are running the same risks.

Does the Fianna Fáil Party support the Minister on this particular policy? Am I to take it that my colleague from Athlone-Longford agrees that that is an adequate amount to pay?

It is the attitude towards the Budget that annoys me.

Never mind the Budget. Is that amount enough? Is that the value which the Government puts on those services, and will the Deputy support the Government on that matter? Does the Deputy or the Government expect the youth of the country to risk their lives in its defence if this is all they are to get in the event of complete disablement?

We have gone much further than any Government in that regard.

I suggest in regard to this matter that you cannot put a financial value on a limb lost or on health lost owing to services given to the nation. But I do congratulate the Minister on having improved very considerably on the provisions which were in operation in cases of that kind up to the present. We might all agree that he should do better, if it were possible but I assume that he has consulted with the Government and that they consider they have gone as far as they can go in dealing with cases of this kind. It is very satisfactory that he has improved considerably on the rates that were previously available for men who gave their services in safeguarding the freedom which the country has won. The Minister is to be congratulated on that.

I quite agree that it would be difficult to fix the value of a limb, but we are not asking the House to do that. We are asking the House to consider what it takes to keep a wife and what it takes to maintain a child. We are asking the House whether they are prepared to make adequate provision for the maintenance of the wives and children of men who, in the military service of this country, completely lost their ability to maintain themselves or their families.

I agree with Deputy O Briain that the Minister may have gone as far as he thought fit in regard to this matter, but that does not justify his attitude or the attitude of the Government. If a man who is 100 per cent. disabled has a wife and child, or two children, is this the value which the Government puts on that mother and children? We want to hear from the Minister a declaration as to what he thinks about the family. I am not concerned about how those people were treated in the past; if they were treated badly in the past, that does not justify the present attitude. We want to hear what is the value to the nation of a mother and family, and God knows we have had a very poor appreciation of them so far in other spheres of life in this country. If a man who has a wife and three or four children is completely disabled owing to his services to the country, is it right that we —who cannot exist on less than £480 a year—should say that his wife and children can get only 10/- a week from the community? I, for one, will stand four-square against that proposal.

I should like to remind the House of Article 41 of the Constitution, which says:—

"The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State."

If the head of the house, by reason of his services to the State, is unable to protect the family and is unable to maintain it, is it not the responsibility of this House to maintain it and to make the necessary provision for it, particularly when the Constitution goes on to say:—

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

We are dealing with a case in which the man is utterly unable to make any provision for the house by reason of the fact that he is incapacitated, and probably requires greater attention from his wife than if he had his full strength and health. He is not able to look after his home, and the woman has, by her life within the home, to give to the State that support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The Constitution goes on to say:—

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

This Bill provides for a man a basic rate, whether he is single or married. The woman, whose position in the State is shown in this Constitution, has to look after the home and a disabled husband, and the family has to be maintained and protected. When the head of the house is incapable of doing that, it is the duty of the State to see that that protection and maintenance are given. A sum of 10/- a week will not do it.

I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. From the remarks which have been made, it would appear that arguments will be based on the manner in which those people were treated by a previous Government. Surely that is not the basis to go on now? If we are to have any regard at all for the Constitution, this is the time for the Minister and the Government to take their courage in their hands and declare what the family, the mothers and children, are worth to this country.

I did not wait until now to make an effort to improve the conditions of the Army. I started when this emergency began. I had not to be goaded either by Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Hickey, or by any Deputy of my own Party, to do the things which I have done in this Bill. I started out right away when the emergency began, and when I saw what the position was, to make an effort to improve conditions. I hold that I have made that effort and made it fairly successfully— not to the degree that I would like to have made it, but still fairly successfully. Now, advances in life, in business, or even in the Army, cannot be made by jumping over a wide gap, and the Deputies who have spoken know that as well as I know it. I have made this advance and, as I said a few minutes ago, it can be improved upon and it may be improved upon. When that time comes I will be just as prepared as Deputy Mulcahy to support that improvement. The improvement that I am putting forward now could not be secured by the Deputy when he occupied a Ministerial position at the time his Party was in office.

I am not prepared to take this Bill back and re-discuss it with my colleagues. I have discussed it with them for quite a considerable time. It is very easy at a time like this for Deputy Mulcahy to talk about the standard of living. I hold that I am improving the standard that exists and I am improving it far in advance of the standard that existed during the period of office of a former Government. While I am not holding that it could not be advanced still further, I am emphasising that I have done all that could possibly be done at the present time. So far as discussions with my colleagues are concerned, knowing what the conditions are, I am not prepared to take this Bill back to them for further consideration.

If that is the attitude of the Minister, then in my opinion this Bill should not be approved by the House. How are we going to treat the families of men who are prepared to give their all in the defence of the lives and liberties of the people of this country? If this is all that can be paid to the dependents of men who have devoted themselves to the service of the country, then, unless it reviews the whole situation, I say that the country that would treat them in such a fashion is not worth defending.

Next door to us a country is engaged in an appalling and costly war. So far as I can see, the soldier in the British Army—take an Irishman, one of the very many who have joined the British Army—who gets totally disabled in military service will get, in addition to his basic rate, 9/2 a week for his wife, 7/1 for the first child and 5/5 for each subsequent child. An Irishman in the British Army who loses his capacity to provide for his family would, in addition to his basic rate, get at least 37/11 a week. The British are bearing the cost of a huge war and they have to bear the cost of a very large number of casualties. We have escaped the major destructive cost of war. Our casualties are not likely, no matter what the circumstances may be, to bear comparison with the casualties Britain will have to face, yet we are offering 10/- a week as against 37/11, or 26/6 if he were simply a man depending on unemployment assistance here.

A lot has been said about some aspects of the past, and I should like to recall certain things. When the Dáil was first being set up, on the 21st January, 1919, it was declared: "In return for willing service, we, in the name of the Republic, declare the right of every citizen to an adequate share of the produce of the nation's labour.""In return for willing service"—here we are dealing with willing service given to the extent of surrendering 100 per cent. of a man's capacity and all we offer his wife and family, as "an adequate share of the produce of the nation's labour", is 10/- a week. "It shall be the first duty of the Government to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland."

A man with a wife and family could not possibly make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of his dependents on 10/- a week; he would be compelled to go to the poor law authorities for additional assistance. That is the kind of Ireland we have now. So far as we can understand from the Minister, the position now is that an Irish Parliament, with a Fianna Fáil majority, is saying that that is the kind of Ireland we have and that is the type of provision that will be made for those who are giving all they possess to the service of the nation.

Election bunkum.

What is being offered by the Government will be of very little assistance.

The Deputy should make some effort to deal with the Bill.

What is being offered by the Minister will be of little assistance to the wife and children of a disabled soldier. The Minister is not so very helpful either when he says that the criticism that is being offered here——

Criticism of that type.

——is only election bunkum. The Minister and other people may be concerned with what is said here, but the wives and families of disabled soldiers, and the men themselves who have to live in a disabled condition, are not so much concerned with what is said here; they are more concerned with what is decided here. That is why I object to the spending of money in connection with this Bill when there is such a cardinal wrong contemplated in relation to men who freely give their services to the country and when there is such a complete repudiation and misconception of what the ordinary people have in their minds.

In reply to the Minister, I should like to say that before ever there was talk of war I took my stand on what the children of the nation and their mothers are naturally entitled to. I am not concerned with any criticism of the Minister. I am concerned solely with getting an opportunity to declare, within the terms of our Constitution, what the family unit is and how it should be treated. If, we have a proper conception of a Christian order in this country we should realise that 10/- is insufficient to enable a married man to keep a wife and children in reasonable comfort. That is not in keeping with our Christian ideals. I say we are ignoring the family unit if we treat the people in the way here proposed. I am not concerned with what has happened since the war started. I proclaimed my views in relation to the family unit and a proper standard of life long before the war was thought of.

I do not doubt that what the Deputy said is correct. What he says, however, makes me doubt very much the sincerity of some of the talk that has gone on here to-day. That kind of talk could have begun three and a half years ago but it did not begin until I brought in this Bill to improve the conditions which I found to exist. I do not want to say too much about what I think of it all.

It would be well worth while if the Minister would say everything that he has in his mind, because while there may be hypocrites in the House, and while things might have been done in the past that were not done, the important point is that if the majority here are of the same mind as the Minister we are going to decide that all that the wife and family of a completely disabled soldier can get is 10/- of a pension. It is important that we should fix our minds on that, no matter what purpose we have in our minds in discussing it or the temper in which we discuss things here. While the Minister and I may squabble for a particular reason over it, we should remember that the people have sent us here to carry on their business. This House is standing over the liberties of freedom of the people, it has called the Army together, and is paying the Army. It thinks it worth while to pay the Army to defend something here. This House has the responsibility and duty, even though there may be hypocrites and squabblers in it, to fix an adequate standard of provision—I will not say compensation—for the wives and children of soldiers who, because of service in the Army, may be reduced to the condition in which they cannot provide for their wives and children.

The Deputy is aware that the scope of this Bill cannot be enlarged beyond that agreed to on the Second Reading Stage.

If this House has no power, through the action of the Government, to increase the amount of money which it wants to provide for the officers and men——

Not within the scope of this Bill.

——I completely disagree. If, after hearing the opinions of people in this House as to what a suitable standard of provision for the wives and children of disabled soldiers should be, the Government decides that it appreciates the situation better than it did before the Bill was introduced, surely there is nothing to prevent the Government moving to increase the amount. I submit that point as an additional argument to the arguments already put before the Minister and members of his Party as to why this Bill should be sent back.

The Deputy knows that a private member cannot propose to enlarge the amount to be spent under any Bill.

I am not asking that. I am seeking to persuade the Minister that not only is the provision made in this Bill inadequate, but that it is all the other things that I have said about it. I again submit that the Government should review the whole matter.

The Committee is now considering the Money Resolution which will enable the Minister to administer the Act as it passed Second Reading, and within the scope of the amount allowed on Second Reading.

I think I have already advanced sufficient reasons to show why it is not worth spending one penny on this Bill unless it is radically changed.

The Deputy is now entering into a Second Reading debate.

I would be very sorry to do that. The Bill was put before the House in a rushed form. It was not circulated until the evening before the day on which it was given a Second Reading. But for that fact a reasoned amendment would have been submitted for the Second Reading.

I wonder if the Minister and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party realise that an income-tax payer is allowed £60 a year for each of his children. The services that he renders to the community are surely not as great as those given by the soldier. The wife and family of the disabled soldier will get only 10/- a week. I cannot understand that conception of things.

I understand the position to be this, that this 10/- is given in addition to the ordinary pay that the soldier receives in the Army. If he is married he gets roughly 42/- a week, and if he is disabled he gets 10/- a week extra.

If he is disabled he gets £2 2s. a week, and if married another 10/-. That makes 52/-.

Governments have a difficulty in raising money to meet all these charges. When the Budget is introduced to make provision for these charges, it is fiercely opposed by large numbers of Deputies. As the Minister has pointed out, when it comes to the point of making those payments, the general attitude of those same Deputies is that the payments are entirely insufficient. That kind of attitude on the part of Deputies causes confusion amongst the community. The Minister has to decide what exactly we can afford to pay. In proportion to what industrial and agricultural workers get, I think that the offer that is being made here is reasonable. I think there is a good deal of insincerity in this attack. I would not like to say that it is due entirely to the fact that a general election is due to come off. At any rate, there is a good deal of insincerity in this, with the result that the community is being somewhat misled as to what this country can afford. The charges generally made against Fianna Fáil—in fact the charge against us—is that we are a most extravagant body of people, that we throw money about, and crush those from whom we have to collect taxation. The money is collected from everybody. People have to pay taxes either directly or indirectly. I do not know that we have ever collected or made extravagant demands on the people. We have collected what we thought it possible to get in order to try to keep the people in employment.

I think that the attitude of those who are opposing this Money Resolution will not appeal to the community. Whenever proposals are brought forward to raise taxation, Deputy Mulcahy always joins in the well-trained chorus which proclaims to the country that Fianna Fáil are robbing the taxpayers and robbing the whole community, that they are extravagant and are throwing money around. We are trying to do now what he and his Party failed to do during the prosperous times that we are so often told about. When the country was flowing with milk and honey, what, in the name of God, did they do? There was not even a labourer's cottage built, or anything of that kind. They now have the impertinence to turn and make this attack.

Mr. Brodrick

Question.

The times are improving very much, indeed, when that happens. They can be improved very much, if the country can afford it. I take it that it has been very well calculated that this is as much as the country can spare. A comparison was tried between this country and Great Britain, at war, with enormous resources. I think there is no such comparison possible. If this were examined by an expert, I am sure he would be quite satisfied that it was extraordinary that Fianna Fáil did collect all the money and managed to pay out so much. Consequently, I think such an attack as this is unreasonable.

May I point out to the Minister that when a young man leaves this country and joins the British Army, there is a feeling of resentment against him. We must remember that, if he does that and becomes disabled, and has a wife and family, his allowance for himself and his wife and, say, five children is 37/11. In this case it is 10/-, when a lad joins the Irish Army at home. The case I am making is that that difference is too great. No matter what the British army did 20 or 30 years ago, it is the situation that arises to-day that counts, and it is immaterial what Cumann na nGaedheal did. We all know—or at least I know—that they did little, so far as that was concerned. That is no reason why, if they were in office to-day, they should continue to be wrong. Apparently, Deputy O Briain thinks that, because Fianna Fáil has done something better, they should be congratulated.

They should, definitely.

But they have not done something better. They are only giving the men what they got in 1923, although the cost of living has gone up by 50 per cent.

This figure will stand for all time, no matter what the cost of living may be. If it were down to 100, this would hold. It would hold at any time.

The big question is that this Dáil, if it passes this Bill, considers that that allowance for the wife and family is ample, and that we are passing it here at this stage requires very careful consideration. It will take more than an election stunt to defend it in the country. I do not care if every single member of the Army voted for the Party. It would not make any difference, as there are not 100,000 in it and they are not all married. I do not see how the Minister or anybody else can say that it is an election stunt. That is just one too much. It is equivalent to the insolent cheek of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he thinks he will get away with everything. It will win in the House, but it will not win down the country and will not meet the justice of the case.

Deputy O'Reilly says that we will vote against taxation when it comes along. I hope he was here in the House when I said that I would vote against spending £8,000,000 on an Army if this is all we have to defend and if this is the standard of outlook on our responsibility to the wives and children of disabled soldiers —that they will get a married allowance of only 10/- per week for the wife and family. The Minister has tried to make the plea that the basic allowance is going to be 42/-. I would like anybody here to tell us, given a man who has lost all his capacity to serve himself or to earn his living, and who has to provide for his keep and his attendance and food, how much he will have left out of 42/- a week to spread around his wife and family. Then Deputy O'Reilly suggests that it is impertinence on our part to come here and criticise the granting of 10/- as a married allowance to keep a wife and family. Well, at any rate, I have courage enough to stand up here in an Irish Parliament to say that it is a shameful proposition. It is a proposition that will not stand, and it is a proposition that will not be accepted by people outside.

To judge from the attitude of the Government in this regard, one would imagine that they were being asked to lay out some fantastic sum. Certainly, the point where I find myself in entire agreement with Deputy Mulcahy is that, where a man is suffering from total disability and has a large family dependent upon him, he is going to be given 10/ a week and told to keep them on that. The number of totally disabled soldiers who will have large families is comparatively small. It is not as if we were asking here that the rates of pay for the Irish Army should be raised substantially, it is not as if we were making a proposal which would cost £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. All that the Minister is being asked to do is to face this dilemma—suppose you have a totally disabled soldier who has two children and you give him 10/——

He would not get that much.

——how would you defend giving a man with six or seven children dependent upon him the same allowance? Surely, every Deputy in this House agrees that the number of cases which will arise of disabled men with large families will be trivial? How can we maintain that we stand for certain fundamental principles in this country and at the same time renege them when they come before us? There is no use in paying lip service to the Christian theory that a man has a fundamental right to marry and rear a family if, the moment the occasion presents itself to give practical effect to that theory, we all say that it would cost too much. After all, that is the very thing for which hundreds of modern thinkers have condemned the Victorians—that they were hypocritical, that they gave up a theory. They were prepared to say that they acknowledged the right of rich and poor alike to marry and rear families, but they stopped there and made no attempt at all to render it possible for the poor to raise families. Will Deputy O'Reilly or any Deputy say that he considers 10/- a fair grant to a man with a wife and one child?

There is 42/- set down here——

——as soldiers' disability pension. We are not dealing with paupers or parasites or people who have become a charge on the public funds through their own fault: we are dealing with men who have left their employment and gone to serve in the Army while a great many of us stayed at home.

And given their all.

I am perfectly certain that the Minister for Defence accepts this more readily than Deputy O Briain. We are not dealing with any people who have come in here to beg. They are people to whom we are greatly beholden.

Such a man has already made great sacrifices and is serving as a soldier, at the lowest rate of pay of a common labourer in this country, out of patriotism. That is what we are paying the soldiers of this State, and that is probably as much as we can afford to pay them. It is notorious, not only in this country but in every country, that a soldier's pay is out of all proportion to the pay of a man who stays at home. Yet you do find a very large body of men who will join a voluntary army such as we have and who are prepared to make a very substantial sacrifice. These are the persons we are dealing with. We are dealing with people who are in no sense beholden to us, but to whom we are greatly beholden. We say to them: "If you become entirely incapacitated, we will give you 42/- per week."

What Deputy will take 42/- per week to surrender his entire physical capacity and become an invalid all his life, never able to do a hand's turn again? Is it a princely dole? Is there any man at this moment who will consent to be permanently disabled in exchange for a life pension of 42/- per week? I do not think so. In giving such a man 42/- per week we are not doing something generous. We are not holding out a temptation to him to go and get himself disabled. We are not offering something that any one of us would be prepared to accept. We are offering something far less but, possibly, as much as our country can afford at the moment. If there were a large number of men permanently disabled after this war period is over and the State was fairly prosperous, I think that, post-war, most people in the House would be anxious to give to those permanently disabled men something better than 42/- per week. I am not criticising the Minister for being unable to find more at present for the disabled men, because I know he is sympathetic and anxious to interest himself in the welfare of the men in the Army. I know that he has his own difficulties. I know that he often has to fight the corner of the men in the Army and be confronted with other Departments of State that take a different view and that want to economise. He has to carry the Executive Council with him. Sometimes he is not able to get from the Government consent for as generous a proposal as he would like to bring before the House. Therefore, for the present in any case, let us take 42/- as reasonable and equitable for a totally disabled man, but nothing generous and nothing extravagant. In all the circumstances, however, it is perhaps for the time being just. But then we come to that man and say to him: "If you have a wife and child—10/-." Probably for a wife and one child that would be reasonable, but no more than that. How, in justice, can we conceivably go to a man who has a wife and five children and say to him: "You also must be content with 10/-; you must spread the provision for a wife and one child over a wife and five or six children"? The thing cannot be done. We do not say that to people in receipt of unemployment assistance, we do not say it to people in receipt of outdoor relief, we do not say it to people in receipt of unemployment insurance, we do not say it to any class of persons in receipt of an allowance which we all recognise is the limit they can expect to receive inasmuch as they are unable to work themselves for the purpose of adding to it.

There is no proposal here to make it necessary to impose vast taxation on the people. All that the Government are asked to do is to invite Dáil Eireann to give practical effect to a principle which has been enunciated in the Constitution—their Constitution.

That you people opposed.

This incident that has taken place in this House shows why we opposed it—because we knew that it was a hollow fraud. It contained a lot of high-falutin' clap-trap about granting certain rights. But there was Article 24 in the Constitution.

The Constitution is not at issue.

The issue was raised that the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to raise a Christian family. Let no citizen plead that clap-trap in defence of his fundamental rights. I quite agree that this Bill is a monument and a warning to the people against the clap-trap of that instrument. Where is it implemented here? Ten shillings a week for a wife and one child; 10/- a week for a wife and six children.

Give us the five reserved clauses.

Every time the Deputy interrupts he gets something he does not expect. Deputy O'Reilly and Deputy Victory invoked the Constitution. All that we are asking is that the pious clap-trap in the Constitution will be given effect to, and, if it is given effect to, then there was virtue in the Constitution that I did not know of. But if the thesis is maintained here that the same allowance is adequate for a man and a wife and one child and for a man, a wife and six children, clap-trap it was.

The sum involved is small, and I invite the Minister, instead of making this a great issue of principle, to come part of the way to meet it. There is no one in the House who does not sympathise with his difficulties. Possibly, if we knew his mind, a great deal of what we are saying commands his sympathy. Might I recommend to the Minister for Defence the prudent and democratic attitude of the Minister for Justice? There were occasions when the Minister for Justice felt that certain courses were desirable, but also possibly felt that he was unable to persuade all his colleagues in the Cabinet to take the same view, and he allowed the strong feeling of Dáil Eireann to support him in order to achieve what he believed to be the ideal.

When he was not affected by financial considerations.

I understand the Minister's difficulty—that the Minister may sometimes find himself threatened with financial chaos if he persists in claiming more generous treatment for those for whom he is earnestly solicitous. I suggest that, instead of sticking his heels in the ground, he should give some evidence that he is sympathetic to the point of view put forward by Deputy Mulcahy and various other Deputies, and, possibly, between this and the conclusion of the Committee Stage of the Bill, point out to the Minister for Finance that the whole House expects something a little better than has been adumbrated here. I have no doubt that, if the Minister gives a sign in that direction, the stony heart of Deputy O Briain and the flinty interior of Deputy Victory and Deputy O'Reilly will begin to soften a little, and he may find that they will go with him to the Minister for Finance and say: "We cannot stand over this proposal; it is not just; we are good Party men, and we want to vote with the Minister, but he must give us something we can vote for."

The principle here involved is: is it equity to grant a man 10/-, if he is totally disabled and has a wife and one child, and also to grant 10/- to a totally disabled man who has a wife and six children? If there are 2,000 such cases when the whole bill is totted up, I shall be surprised. If there were 10,000 such cases, I still say we should stand on the principle and do what is right. I urge the Minister to give way to what I feel fairly sure is his own inclination and to make renewed representations to the Minister for Finance that the money must be made available; to recognise the different liability of the man with one child and the man with six. If he does make these representations now, inasmuch as the Taoiseach intends to speak at no far distant date on the principle of family allowances, I think he will find that that shrewd old campaigner will not wish to appear before this House in an inconsistent position, refusing to the soldier, who has given his all, that which he intends to provide for everybody else in the State. I am only asking for the soldier the same as I ask for every citizen in the State and that is, the recognition of the special burden he has to bear if he is a responsible parent of a large family. Do not let it be said in this day of the year that Dáil Eireann has laid down that it is not interested in the family commitments of the servants of the State. Rather let us go on record as saying that in so far as finance will permit we will give effect to the principle that a man, whether he be rich or poor, shall be entitled and enabled, in the community to which we belong, not only to marry but to provide for the children with whom God has blest his marriage.

Deputy McGovern rose.

On a point of information, we are still discussing the Money Resolution and I would like to know when we are likely to be able to start discussing the Bill proper. The Bill, as far as I can see, is being discussed now in all its aspects. I would like to know if this discussion will be resumed after the Money Resolution is passed. I think we are wasting time. I am only raising the matter from that point of view. If we are going to have complete rediscussion when we begin to deal with the Bill, I think it is unreasonable.

The Minister suggests we are discussing this Bill in all its aspects. We are discussing only one point in the Bill, that is, the provision made for pensions for disabled married men. First and foremost, we are asking for some recognition that it is inadequate. Then, if we cannot get that, we are asking for some explanation, in view of the fact that a man on unemployment assistance will get his basic amount plus 26/6, and an Irishman serving in the British Army will get his basic pay plus 37/11. We are putting that 37/11 against the 10/- which this Bill provides.

The Deputy is making a speech by way of a submission.

We are only on the one point.

Since I returned to the Chair, I heard the one point discussed with a side-line on the discussion, but I suppose it was just an aside.

I suppose so.

The one point in that is that 10/-. However, that will be in one section of the Bill and the Minister requests that it should not be discussed fully now and fully again. That is a matter for the Committee.

It is a matter for the Committee.

We are discussing the question of money, and unless money is provided for the most fundamental part in the Bill we think it is not worth while providing it for anything.

The Chair has not suggested that the Committee was out of order in discussing that matter.

We do not want to mislead you. We are discussing not only the 10/- for a man's family but we are discussing the £30 for an officer's family.

I want to assure and to calm Deputy Dillon and the other Deputies. I am not endeavouring to prevent this debate from going on. The House has pressed on me several times to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. Every day that this Bill is delayed means that people are being prevented from receiving payments. The sooner the Bill can be put through the House the better for all these people concerned. I have no objection whatever—and I want to assure the House on this point—if they like to discuss it for a week. That is their business.

If it is a question of economy, the Minister is beginning in the wrong place. People who have become disabled in the service of the country should be treated more generously than it is proposed to treat these people under this Bill. A soldier and his wife and family should not be allowed to starve because he has been wounded or is suffering from any disability. I have one case in mind concerning which I have been in communication with the Minister. It is a case of a man who is not allowed anything at all. I refer to the case of Acting Corporal John J. McMahon, 59463. He was committed to Monaghan Mental Hospital by the doctor at the Curragh, on the 17th August. He was discharged within a month by the Medical Superintendent of Monaghan Mental Hospital, and I believe a solicitor in Belturbet has a certificate from that gentleman stating that he found no mental disorder. He offered to take up his position in the Army again, as he was returned as fit by the Medical Superintendent of Monaghan Mental Hospital, but the Army authorities refused to take him back. They may have some reason and I do not want to question their right to refuse to take him back, but I do think that the Minister or somebody responsible should consider the question of granting this man a pension, be it small or large.

The Deputy surely realises that the administration of the Department does not arise now. It would be impossible for the Minister to follow all such cases without having got prior notice.

I do not see how a man, who the Deputy says was declared fit by a private doctor, can receive compensation.

I would like the Minister to give us some information as to whether this man's case will be covered by this Bill and whether he is prepared to grant him any compensation or pension. I believe a clergyman interviewed the Minister on his behalf and got a rather strange reply. If my information is correct, the Minister said the best thing for this man to do was to go to law. Why should he have to go to law for his right if he was discharged from the Army? Whether he is still suffering from disability, mental or otherwise, or not, whether he is perfectly recovered and fit and has been refused to be taken back, or not, would he not be entitled to be dealt with in a more generous and fairer manner than this? I would like the Minister to give us some information on that point.

That is just the type of case on which the Minister cannot give information now. He has not got the relevant files at hand.

I do not know who is responsible for it.

The Minister is, but not in this Bill, I would say. It would arise on the Estimate.

This man has waited six months and is he to wait another six months until the Estimate comes along?

The Deputy might put down a question.

I would like to avail of this opportunity to get some information.

Mr. Brodrick

I am very much surprised at the attitude of the Fianna Fáil members here this evening. As has been pointed out by several Deputies —Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Dillon—we have very high taxation and all we are asking the Government to do now is to give consideration to men who have made sacrifices for the country. This country is allowed to live by the sacrifices made by those who are totally disabled. If those sacrifices were not made, it is possible that this House would not be allowed to live. Therefore, we should consider these men. It might be said that the former Government had not done it.

If it did not do it, it was because it had a lot of other important work to do as well, but even with the big amount of work which had to be carried out in order to save the country, the taxation at that time was only just half what it is at the present day. All that is asked of this House is to give fair consideration to the people affected by this Bill. As Deputy Dillon has pointed out, you will not have a big number of men totally disabled in an Army such as we have at present, but men who have made a sacrifice in order to serve the country should certainly get better consideration than they are getting under this Bill. We appeal to the Government to increase these allowances, and I think there will not be a single Deputy of the 130 odd that we have in the House who will oppose that proposal. As Deputy Dillon has stated, the Minister should make a stand before the Executive Council, and see that these cases will be met in a fair way.

I should like to put this one point to the Minister. I cannot see for the life of me how he can defend a proposal under which a uniform allowance is given to a married man with only a wife, a married man with a wife and a child, and a married man with a wife and ten children. It does not matter what number of children there is in the family. There is an important moral question involved in that arrangement, and I think that the Minister would be well advised to reconsider the matter. The threat to hold up the Bill for an indefinite period is a serious threat, but it would be much better to have a just Bill than a bad Bill. I am certainly anxious to see the Bill passed, and I should not like to do anything that would hold it up, because I know that there are a number of serious cases in a bad way owing to the delay in introducing the Bill. In this question, however, as I say, there is a big principle involved. In passing, I should like to remind the Minister and the Government that it was a question that was raised by me not to-day, nor even ten years ago, but prior to that. The proposal to fix the same allowance for a man who has a wife, a man who has a wife and one child, and a man who has a wife and ten children, is in my opinion indefensible.

In the British Army and in every other Army there is a graded scale under which so much is allowed for each child. The number in the family is immaterial, the graded scale applies in every case. It has been very properly pointed out that the amount involved cannot be very much but you will be giving effect to a very important principle and you will be maintaining the moral code in a very positive way. If the principle which it is proposed to operate under this Bill were to be adopted in respect of other Departments, I think you would reach a stage when the principles of Marie Stopes would be adopted all over the country. That cannot be tolerated at all.

I cannot allow Deputy MacEoin to get away with the suggestion that I am defending the allowance of 10/- as adequate. Goodness knows, I know the value of 10/- as much as any Deputy in the House, but what I want to point out to Deputy MacEoin is that this proposal doubles the amount which I found existing when I took over this administration. I thought I was doing a fair job by doubling the amount.

Everybody will give the Minister credit for that, but the Minister must admit that it is obviously inadequate to allow a person 10/- when he is married, and to take no cognisance of the degree of liability which may devolve upon him subsequently by reason of that marriage. If a man is married and has to maintain only a wife, that is an entirely different financial proposition from having to maintain a wife and five children. The relevant section of the Bill makes no provision for that elastic responsibility. It may not be very great in the case of a man who has merely a wife to maintain but it may be a very serious responsibility if he has five or six children plus a wife. Would the Minister undertake between now and the time that this Bill reaches the Seanad to re-examine the matter with a view to having better provision made for the case of those who have large families to maintain and for whom an allowance of 10/- per week is totally inadequate? After all, our liability is just an emergency liability. If we can come through this emergency with only the responsibility for the payment of such pensions as arise out of death and disability, the liability on posterity will not be very heavy. Nobody will grudge pensions to those who happen to meet with wounds or other disability during the emergency. Other countries will probably have to mortgage the earnings of the next three or four generations for the payment of heir share in the Armageddon which now in full swing about us. Our liability in this matter may not be very great, and while admitting that the Minister has moved in the matter, I would ask him, between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad, to reconsider the relevant section with a view to increasing the allowance where the number of children in a family would justify such an increase over 10/-.

I shall undertake to direct the attention of every member of the Government to the discussion which has taken place.

And you will blaze the trail before the Executive Council?

I have been blazing it all the time.

I should like to say that there has been ample time to consider this Bill since the matter was discussed on Second Reading. This is the House which appeals to the young men of the country to join the Defence Forces for the emergency and I am not going to agree to any section of this Bill passing through the House until a point that is so fundamental as the point we are discussing now is definitely recognised and, if it has to be reconsidered, the result of that reconsideration brought before this House by way of an amendment. To say "we will give you this measure but will you see to this point before it goes to the Seanad" is not the way to treat a matter that is so important as this. This is a fundamental question. We are deciding here what is an adequate provision for the wives and children of men who surrendered all their prospects for the defence of this country. I think it is a matter that should be looked fairly in the face by the House and a decision should be definitely taken on the merits after a full review of the circumstances. We should not leave the matter to be dealt with in some back Government office or some Ministerial office to be considered on its way to the Seanad.

I also join in the appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision in this matter. I think that neither of the Governments we have had in the country has done justice to the Irish Army. When we consider what the country owes to the Army we must admit that no money would compensate those men who fall by the wayside. We find all over the country that the most neglected men are almost always ex-soldiers of our little Army of 15 or 20 years ago. They seem to be nobody's children. Having served their country, their country has no use for them. No matter what Government is in power, justice should be done to ex-members of the Irish Army. As Deputy Dillon pointed out, there is a gross injustice in allowing a disabled soldier with a wife and six children only the same amount as a disabled soldier with a wife and one child. That is an injustice over which we should not stand. I ask the Minister to have the matter reconsidered by the Government and to press this aspect of the case upon them. All sides of the House should agree to do something decent for the Irish soldier. Is it any wonder that so many of our young soldiers should be deserting, crossing the Border and joining the British Army? I am told that certain stores in Belfast are packed with Irish uniforms—the uniforms of Irish soldiers who joined the British Army, where they will get better treatment, although they will have to take greater risks.

It is regrettable to think that, when this emergency is over, the man who served in a foreign army and who was disabled will get a larger allowance than the man who served his own country and was disabled in so doing. The Irish soldier who risked his life at home will get a niggardly pittance as compared with the man who served in a foreign army. It is extraordinary that we can find money for so many nonsensical things and that, when it comes to compensating the Irish soldier, we must be content to throw him on the scrap heap. I do not press this matter as a political opponent of the Government. I do so because, as one of the soldiers of the Irish Army at the beginning. I found that the private soldier had a grievance. The higher officers had, perhaps, something less to complain of but the ordinary private soldier felt that he would be left derelict when the struggle was over. When this emergency is over, if the private soldier be thrown on the scrap heap, nobody can blame him if, finding his wife and children hungry, he insists on rising up and making himself heard. Now is the time to do justice not only to these men but to the whole country. That will bring concord and harmony because these men will feel that they have been fairly treated. They are ready to give their lives, if need be, and it is up to us to deal with them generously. When we see so many men standing aside and refusing to give any service, we must consider what they will say when the emergency is over. If the Irish soldiers are thrown on the scrap heap, these people will say: "We were the wise fellows." We should see that they will not be in a position to say that, and that they will be shown to have acted in an unnational way.

I replied from time to time to the points which were made, and I cannot add anything to what I have said. The most I can promise to do is what I indicated to Deputy Norton—to bring to the notice of the other members of the Government the views of the different Deputies.

Question put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 57; Níl, 24.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Hughes.
Question declared carried.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Top
Share