Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1943—Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present—

I object to the House passing this section. Sub-section (2) says that:—

this Act shall be construed as one with the Acts recorded in sub-section (1). I do not think this measure should be joined to any group of Acts dealing with Army pensions on the one fundamental point which we discussed on the Money Resolution. It is scarcely worth while mentioning anything else when there is that fundamental defect in the Bill and it is because of that fundamental defect that I do not think any section of this Bill should pass. The Minister has made certain references to the effect that this Bill is better than the 1927 Act. I dealt with that matter on Second Reading.

This is only a definition section.

I am against the passing of this section simply because it is part of the Bill which is presented to us and because it says that it shall be construed as one with the others. If it is not in order for me to make certain remarks with regard to the 1923 Act and this Bill, I have nothing more to say, but I oppose this section.

Question put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 51; Níl, 23.

Tá.

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

Níl.

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • 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 Seán Brady; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Hughes.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".

I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that we have not a House.

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

I do not know whether you can accommodate yourself to Deputy Smith's suggestion that you should wait to go on with the business of the House until you count the House?

I only asked that the Chair should accommodate itself to reason, and that Deputies who raise questions like this should also accommodate themselves to reason.

Question again proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".

I oppose this section. This section proposes to extend the terms of this Bill to—amongst others — the men who joined the Army during the emergency. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, and a lot of other Ministers have gone through the country from time to time calling on the young men of the country to join the Army and help to defend this country's liberty and resources. They have argued the case very strongly. They have talked about the duty and the national responsibility there is on the young men to defend the people of this country and their rights and liberties. On the Second Reading of this Bill I pointed out the fundamental defects, and asked, in view of some of the remarks of the Minister, that the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance should be here to discuss the point that was then raised, and that has since been discussed here. I again say that it is fundamental to the whole matter we are discussing. The matter was put very clearly and simply from various benches in the House during the discussion on the Financial Resolution. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence and other Ministers have come into the House and voted for the principle—or the lack of principle—in this Bill, but we cannot get them here now to listen to what is to be said from the various benches on behalf of the wives and families of men whom they have called to the Army, and who may be completely disabled on Army service. I think it is a very regrettable way to deal with a very important matter, a matter which is fundamental not only with regard to our attitude to the Army, but with regard to our whole outlook on society here, because, if the State cannot adequately sustain the wives and children of people who are completely disabled in its service, what other wives or what other children do we expect will be maintained in this State?

They are not in this section.

This section brings in the people who join the Army during the emergency period.

It simply defines the emergency period.

And, during the period defined as the emergency period, men have been appealed to particularly.

We cannot discuss what is going to take place within that period. This section simply deals with the extension of it—when it begins and when it is going to end.

Well, Sir, I suppose from the time it began until it ends we will still have Ministers going around the country making this appeal, and, if the section is intended to extend the time during which Ministers will make appeals to people to join the Army, then I think it is nearly time they realised that all they are offering to those men is that, when they are completely disabled and unable to provide either for themselves or for their wives, the State will give them 10/- in addition to their own basic allowance. Again, I object to this section being passed, because I think there is something fundamentally rotten at the core of the whole Bill.

Question put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 48; Níl, 19.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • McCann, John.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl.

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 3.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, in the name of Deputy Mulcahy, are out of order.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Has the Minister nothing to say about this section?

I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much on this section, because the provisions are quite clear. Under the 1927 Act a disease to be pensionable had to be contracted before the 30th day of September, 1924. Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 3 makes a disease due to service and contracted during the emergency period pensionable. Sub-section (1) (b) applies to the married personnel and gives the conditions necessary for a married pension in addition to the disability pension. Sub-section (2) fixes the date from which the disability pension granted under a previous sub-section will be payable. Sub-section (3) sets out the date by which application for a disability pension must be made. Sub-section (4) makes it clear that under Section 10 (1) of the 1927 Act a disease to be pensionable had to be 80 per cent. on the date of examination by the Army Pensions Board, but Section 7 of the 1937 Act gave until the 31st July, 1938, in order to reach the required 80 per cent. This sub-section repeals Section 7 of the 1937 Act. Sub-section (5) increases the scale of pensions, including married pensions, for disablement due to wounds and disease contracted during the emergency period.

I have already pointed out that in October, 1923, the cost-of-living index figure for all items was 186 and in November, 1942, it had reached 273; that is, it had gone up by nearly 50 per cent. When we take food alone, in 1923 it was 190 and by November, 1942, it had gone up to 250, an increase of nearly one-third. I commented the other night on the 1927 Act. I have no further comment to make on it. I have no comment to make on the 1923 Act, except this, that at a time when the cost of living for all items has gone up by nearly 50 per cent., and for food alone by one-third, the Minister has not only gone back to the 1923 Act, but is not even doing as well as it. Under the 1923 Act, if an officer was 100 per cent. disabled he became entitled to a pension of £200 a year. This section contemplates that an officer who is permanently disabled in the present emergency may only get £120 a year. The Minister, in his explanation of the section, did not say why an officer, if he is 100 per cent. disabled, should get £80 a year less than he would have got under the 1923 Act. Neither did he say if he had given any consideration at all to the difference in the cost of living as between 1923 and 1942. As regards the amount set down as the marriage allowance to be paid in respect of the wife and family, in addition to the officer's basic allowance, the Minister has made no attempt to explain what inquiries he made to satisfy himself that he was doing justice to an officer and his family by providing only £30 for a married pension, or in the case of a man 100 per cent. disabled, he was showing any sense of justice for the man's wife and family by simply adding 10/- to the 42/- for the married pension. The Minister is creating a situation whereby he cannot assure himself that such a man will not have to go on poor relief if his family are to be kept in health and in clothing, and if the children's education is to be looked after. To the disability that such a man is labouring under, you are adding the shocking torment of mind that he is at home unable to work, spending all his day looking at his wife and family inadequately provided for. If there is any class in the State, facing the new world of tomorrow or the difficult world of to-day, that we should see is properly looked after, it is the class composed of the families of men who have given all their faculties in the service of the State and have become disabled.

We have seen the terrible disaster of war come on other countries of the world. Responsible people in those countries, in looking back over the past years, have come to the conclusion that it was their neglect of the unemployment problem, and the conditions arising from it, that brought about the present war. They have determined that, when peace comes, they will be energetic and careful to use all their resources and power of organisation to see that unemployment will not be a menace to their family life, and, therefore, a menace to their national and international peace. Here we have built up an Army. We are collecting millions of pounds from the people and are borrowing millions more to keep that Army to defend us against the impact of war. We also ought to show that we are prepared to defend ourselves against the type of thing that has brought other countries into war—the conditions resulting from unemployment. We should be seeking in that direction for a challenge to stir our energies, our abilities, and our capacity for organisation —to use all our resources so as to prevent the misery to family life that unemployment brought about in other countries. It is difficult, apparently, for us to set ourselves that challenge. We can, however, find a nucleus there that will direct our minds and be a challenge to us to use all our resources and guide us to the broader path later on. Are we prepared to ask ourselves to-day: Is this State ready to make adequate provision for the wives and children of men who are permanently disabled, so that the men will be maintained in a certain degree of comfort and peace of mind, with the assurance that their wives will be able to look after the home and family, that the children will get education and be maintained with the necessary food and clothing to secure their health, that they can feel that, so far from being paupers indebted to maintenance by the State, they are the children of fathers who have given their all, up almost to the very threshold of their lives, in order that the liberties and resources of this State may be able to be used for the benefit of the people as a whole? I do not think the House can avoid facing that issue and giving it a lot more consideration than it has given it so far. It is regrettable, in a discussion of this matter, that it should come to be argued about by way of question and answer. I submit with all earnestness to the House that the position we have before us in this Bill cannot stand. Deputies have said that we cannot afford to do more, that we will complain about the bills that will be submitted if we increase these amounts. I say that we cannot afford not to provide for the wives and children that I speak of.

Deputy Mulcahy has completely misinformed himself on the question of officers' pensions. I do not suggest that he has been deliberately trying to misinform the House, but it is possible that people who heard him speak, and have left the House, would go away believing that he had stated something that was a fact. Either the Deputy has not read the Bill carefully, or for some other reason he has made those statements. If he read the Bill carefully he would see that 60 per cent. of the annual pay at the date of discharge, or the sum of £120 per annum, whichever is the greater——

I suggest to the Minister that that implies that £120 may be the greater, and, if £120 is the greater in any particular case, that is £80 less than that officer would have got under the 1923 Act.

I would ask the Deputy to allow me to speak. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking. Unless he deliberately wants to put me off what I want to say, he should allow me to continue.

Sixty per cent. of the pay of an officer here could reach the sum of £480. I do not know whether or not that is news to the Deputy, but that is the fact. I cannot understand why the Deputy should get up and make the statements which he has made if in fact he knows what I am telling him now to be true. I hope his information in regard to the Bill generally is better than that. The rates here are the minimum rates, not the maximum rates, and any officer who is injured or becomes disabled through disease will receive those amounts, according to his rank. The Second Lieutenant—that is the lowest grade in the rankings—receives about 85 per cent. of his actual pay.

Deputy Mulcahy also said that I made no effort to defend the position in respect of married pensions. I might just as well ask what defence did Deputy Mulcahy ever make of the £20 figure that was operating in his time, and that I have gone out of my way to increase to £30. I do not have to defend an increase. I am telling the Deputy that I have increased to £30 10s. a sum which, under the 1927 Act, was £20 5s. I do not have to defend that.

I can see quite clearly what the Deputy is endeavouring to do. He is endeavouring to raise a question as to what is the standard rate for a family, or the cost of living, or something like that. He will have ample opportunity to bring that in on many other occasions. When the Minister for Finance was discussing the questions that he had to discuss on the Vote on Account. I do not know whether the Deputy took advantage of the presence of the Minister for Finance to raise all the questions which he seems to have gone out of his way to raise on this particular Bill. The question of what is or what should be the standard rate for a family can be discussed on the motion on family allowances which will be coming after this.

It was discussed on the Vote on Account.

Why have we to delay this particular Bill by a discussion on that matter? This is an urgent Bill. It is urgent from the point of view of the recipients. I do not mind how long the discussion lasts; I am only calling the attention of the House to the fact that every day the Bill is held up we are withholding payment in some necessitous case.

I raised this issue on the Vote on Account.

I am not raising an abstruse question. The general question was raised long ago. It was raised two years ago on a motion by Deputy Norton in the House, to which Deputy McGilligan and myself put down an amendment. I am confining myself entirely to the question as to what this House considers an adequate provision for the wife and family of a soldier who becomes completely disabled in the service of the country. The Minister suggested that under this Bill a Second-Lieutenant would be better off than under the 1923 Act, but it would help us to be clear on that if he gave us the figures as to what the scale of pension would be for a Second-Lieutenant under this section here.

Under the 1923 Act it would be £200 When I see this statement here: "Officers: degree of disability: 100 per cent; scale of pension: 60 per cent. of annual pay at the date of discharge, or the sum of £120 per annum whichever is the greater", the Minister must excuse me if I interpret that as meaning that there may be cases where £120 will be greater than 60 per cent. of the annual pay at the date of discharge. The sentence can mean nothing else. It is arising out of the plain suggestion in that sentence that I say that cases may arise here in which an officer would get less than he would get under the 1923 Act, even though the cost of living has substantially increased.

There is no other point in this section, or in any of the sections, worth talking about except the main point that, if we pass this section here, this Parliament is giving it as a definite expression of opinion that 10/- a week is adequate to give to a man who is completely incapacitated, by reason of military service, from earning his own living or contributing to the income of his family. Again, I ask the Minister how he came to that decision, when a man who has the whole of his ability, the whole of his health, and who is on unemployment assistance will get, if he has a wife and five children, 12/6 additional payment in cash, and 14/- worth of milk and bread and butter; that is, in addition to his basic allowance, if he has a wife and five children and if he is receiving unemployment assistance himself, he will get cash and goods to the value of 26/6, and, if he is an Irishman who has joined the British Army, in addition to his basic pension, if he is completely disabled he will get at least 37/11. Those are the last British figures that I have seen, and already it has been pointed out during a Parliamentary discussion in Great Britain that, where you have a man who has sacrificed all his power to provide for himself and his family in the interests of his country, they owe him more than mere subsistence, that they owe him some additional provision which will give him some mental comfort—the mental satisfaction that at any rate his wife and children are being provided for.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 23.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnechadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl.

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle Peadar S.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady: Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

This section brings in the Army nursing service. Heretofore, the Army nursing service were not included for the purpose of wounds or disability pensions. They were covered for service but not for wounds or disability. This section proposes to bring them in and to give them rights under the wounds and disability section. Sub-section (3) fixes the date of the commencement of the pension and sub-section (4) fixes the period within which the applications for pensions have to be made.

I do not think there is any section of people more competent to advise the Minister on the main point that we have been discussing here, that is, the inadequacy of the provision made for the wives and children of disabled soldiers, than the nursing staff that are provided for in this section. They know what it is to deal with disabled men. They know what the care of disabled men involves. They can easily understand what it takes to maintain a wife. They have some understanding, I am sure, of what the maintenance of a child involves. I have no objection to the type of provision that is made here and it is good to see it made but I do not think there is any member of the nursing staff who cannot afford to wait until consideration is given to the much more urgent case of the wife and children of a disabled man. I do not know whether the nursing staff have recently benefited under, say, any of these bonus orders. There probably would be a case for that when the increase in the cost of living within the last 12 months is considered. There has been an increase in the cost of living from 237 in 1941 to 273 in 1942. I do not know whether they have got the benefit of a bonus or not, but I think I read recently that the women in the textile industry have received a bonus of an additional 5/-. The fact that the ordinary woman with a basic salary is, by reason of even the temporary changes here, judged to be due an increase of 5/- in her present wages, is, I think, a rather pointed comment on the provision which this Bill makes —10/- to keep the wife and family of a disabled man. Therefore, I oppose this section because I think the nursing staff can afford to wait. I think the very fact that they are asked to wait and the fact that they would be willing to wait may help the Minister to realise the importance of the other point. If he would address himself to the nursing staff on the question of what would be an adequate amount to maintain the wife and family of a disabled man, he might get a lot of very good advice and assistance in arriving at a decision.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 20.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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 (Junior).
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady: Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 3:—

At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—

(9) Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act of 1932 is hereby repealed.

What purpose does the amendment propose to effect?

It provides for certain payments to widows of officers who die from disease during the emergency. Without it, we could not make them.

What does the section as amended do?

The 1927 Act provided only for widows and orphans of personnel dying after 1st October, 1924. This section extends the provision to cover other dependents but only during the emergency period. Section 14 (2) of the 1927 Act dealt only with the widows and orphans of persons dying from disease contracted before 30th September, 1924. Sub-section (2) of this section extends the period to the emergency period and also provides for dependents other than widows and orphans. Section 14 (2) (d) of the 1927 Act grants widows' and orphans' allowances where a person with a disability (disease) pension plus a married pension dies from the disease in respect of which he had a pension. Sub-section (2) of this section extends the provision to the widows and orphans of those who get a disease pension of 80 per cent. or over in respect of the emergency period.

The next sub-section extends the provisions to dependents other than widows and orphans. Section 15 (2) of the 1927 Act grants widows' and orphans' allowances where a person with a wound pension plus a married pension dies from the wound in respect of which he had a pension. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 ensures that the same provision will operate in respect of those who die with a wound pension plus a married pension. Sub-section (5) of the section describes the other dependents now covered, provides one of more allowances for total dependence, and provides one allowance for one main dependent. A person totally or mainly dependent on more than one officer or soldier can receive only the maximum allowance provided. The maximum allowance for the dependent of an officer is £52 per annum and £26 per annum in the case of a soldier. Sub-section (6) fixes the date for the commencement of the allowance, sub-section (7) fixes the period for application and sub-section (8) restricts the extension to dependents, other than widows and orphans, to the emergency period. The amendment, as I have already stated, is merely a drafting amendment to ensure that the widows of officers who die from disease during the emergency will be entitled to widows' and children's allowances.

I should like to know if that section would cover the case which I mentioned here before in which a man travelling between Cork and Limerick on a military lorry was killed. He left a wife and five children after him. The Minister often stated that there was no Act in existence under which he could give compensation in that case. Could he provide for the dependents of that man under this Bill?

I am afraid not.

Could it not be amended to give this poor widow and her children some compensation?

The case to which Deputy Hickey refers is, I think, that of men who were killed when coming from Limerick.

This man was killed in a Cork lorry. The position was that he had a pass by train, but travelled by military lorry. Three of the men were killed, and this man had a wife and five young children.

It was illegal for him to travel by lorry.

I admit that he was not travelling as he was instructed to travel.

I cannot do anything in that case.

I know that you were held up before, but, seeing that you are providing compensation for widows in this section, it is not too much to ask that some provision should be made for a case of this kind.

The man was not on duty, and in fact was not on service.

I am allowing for that. He was travelling home on week-end leave, and was to return on Monday morning. He found that he would have five hours longer in Cork by travelling by military lorry instead of by train. I think that there is a moral obligation on the part of the State towards this man's wife and five young children, and that we should avail of this opportunity to discharge the obligation.

I am sorry to have to disagree with the Deputy. I do not think this is an occasion on which we should provide for dependents of people who deliberately refuse to comply with, or disobey, the ordinary regulations of the Army. Unfortunately for himself, this man had no right to travel in this lorry. He did so at his own risk, and at the risk of his dependents. To bring in a provision to legalise such action would be disastrous. It would be to invite resort to all sorts of illegalities by soldiers.

I am not arguing against the Minister in that respect. But here is a man whose widow and five children are to be left without provision simply because he availed of a lorry coming to Cork instead of travelling by train. Surely, legislation will not take away the right to give that widow some compensation for the loss of her husband. I am not condoning the irregularity committed by the soldier.

I am sure the Minister did not mean what he said when he remarked that action in a case of this kind would be "disastrous." It would not be disastrous to give a gratuity in a case like this.

I may have used the word "disastrous" loosely, but it would be a bad thing to legalise that type of conduct. There is a strict rule in the Army—Deputies would be the first to raise a query if the rule were broken—whereby persons are not allowed to travel on Army lorries unless they are on duty. We know what human frailty is. Soldiers who know that a lorry is about to set off in a certain direction will wait up the road for it and try to make arrangements with the driver to get a "lift" and thus save their railway fares. It would not be a good thing for me, or for any Minister for Defence, to legalise action of that kind.

I am not asking that you should legalise it. I have known cases where men were killed in circumstances in which they were doing things which, according to the conditions of their employment, they had no right to do. Nevertheless, the insurance company, without admitting liability, gave gratuities of £250 to their widows.

You are asking me to do something within the provisions of this Act which I cannot do because to do so would be to legalise irregular action.

Is it possible to give the widow in this case compensation in some other way?

That is quite outside the section.

Here, again, provision is made for a certain class of dependents. I suggest to the Minister that, arising out of their own experience of facts and difficulties, these would be one of the first of the various classes who would say that people who ought to be considered before them are the wives and children of people still alive who gave all their capacity in the service of their country. I suggest that they are a class to whom the Minister might refer and find out some estimate of what would be required to keep the wife and children of a completely disabled soldier. I have no hesitation in saying that people with their experience would be the first to urge that absence of proper provision for the wives and families of completely disabled men was a fundamental blemish on this Bill and who would say that they would be prepared to wait until the Government had thought that matter over and would advise the Government if they wanted to know what adequate provision for a wife and children should be in such circumstances.

It is most regrettable that this issue was not brought under the notice of another body where the Minister might have been induced to take a more liberal and more generous line. I do not accuse the Minister of being hard-hearted. I suspect that he is merely bowing to the dictatorial attitude of the Department of Finance. I could quote something in support of that, but I do not wish to do so in this House. If it is the intention of the Government, as they say, to bring in a scheme of family allowances during their official lifetime, surely the attitude of the Minister in opposing the suggestions of Deputy Mulcahy is quite in conflict with that intention.

To which portion of Section 5 does the Deputy refer?

Deputy Mulcahy said before he sat down that his opposition to Section 5 was on fundamental grounds. I thoroughly agree with him in that.

The Deputy might indicate where, in Section 5, any sum is specified?

This is the first time I said anything during the discussion. If you allow me to do so on this section of the Bill——

The Deputy must confine himself to the section.

I have said sufficient to make myself understood by the Minister.

The Chair does not like the tone of that remark.

If you will not allow me to say anything, I must sit down.

The Deputy has not been prevented from saying anything in order.

Have I said anything disorderly?

The Deputy was asked to indicate the part of Section 5 he was discussing, and did not give the information.

If I deliberately refrained from answering the question you put, I was not disorderly in doing so.

Question—"That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 21.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissoy, Michael.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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 (Junior).
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Députies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

What about Part III, Sir?

That goes with Section 5, all to the end of page 6.

That is, Parts III and IV would be included in Section 5?

I should like to know whether the Minister has anything to say with regard to this section.

This section deals with disablement due to disease attributable to service during the emergency period, where disability is less than 80 per cent., but not less than 50 per cent. It reduces the degree of disablement. Under sub-section (1) (a), if the person's degree of disablement is found to be less than 80 per cent., and not less than 50 per cent., there may be granted to such person a final pension of 15/- a week. Under sub-section (1) (b) if the person's degree of disablement is found to be not less than 80 per cent., on the date of examination, but is subsequently found, on any periodical reexamination, to have dropped below 80 per cent., but not less than 50 per cent., there may be granted to such person a final pension of £1 per week.

The same remarks which I made on previous sections, with regard to the nurses, apply here. Here, again, the Minister will find a group of people who, if he consults them, will be quite ready to say that until a proper attitude is taken up towards the wives and children of men who are completely disabled as a result of their service, they are prepared to wait until the Government makes up its mind to act in a proper way in that regard, and to devise some sort of adequate provision for the wives and families of people who are completely disabled.

Question put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 48: Níl, 21.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • 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 (Junior).
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

This section applies to every person who is in possession of a military service certificate in respect of Easter Week, 1916, or who is in receipt of a disability pension in respect of wounds or injuries received or disability contracted during that particular 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 is £78 a year; if married, £97 10s. Od.; and for each child the sum is raised by £10 8s. Od. a year. In other words, a single person, totally destitute, will receive £78 a year and, if married, £97 10s. Od; with £10 8s. Od. added in respect of each child. On the other hand, if the person be not totally destitute but in receipt of a service or a disability pension, his means will be brought up to the scale of allowances mentioned. It will thus be seen that every person qualifying under this provision will be entitled to, from all sources, if single, 30/- a week: if married, 37/6 a week and an additional sum of 4/- a week in respect of each child.

Here we have an extraordinary position. We are asked to accept the principle that a special allowance will be given to a child. The men and women of Easter Week faced realities and, I am sure, are ready to face realities to-day. They would be the first to tell the Minister that the children and wives of men who are completely disabled should be adequately provided for. When the 1934 Act was being discussed in this House, I opposed it and then, when it was passed by a majority vote, I appealed to the House to realise that there were men who had served in 1916 and were in very poor circumstances. I pleaded that, if various classes of people were being catered for, that very small remnant should be catered for. The attitude of the Government at that particular time was that they could not do so; but, happily, during the transit of the 1934 Act from this House to the Seanad, the Government mind changed on the matter and certain provisions were made for them.

People who went out in 1916 asserted that the Irish Republic was entitled to and claimed the allegiance of every Irish man and woman. It guaranteed certain things and it declared itself resolved "to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally". It called on the Irish people, as a whole: "In this supreme hour, the Irish nation must, by its policy and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called." A couple of years ago—on what the Minister called the abstruse question which he alleged I was dealing with to-night—I asked the House what they considered was the "august destiny" to which this refers.

That "august destiny" is not at issue. What arises is whether or not certain concessions should be made to the survivors of 1916.

Here again you have a class that would deliberately and definitely wait and ask to have the Government provide for the children as well as the wives of men who may be permanently disabled under present circumstances.

That is not relevant. It is a question of a concession for a particular class. The same speech cannot, obviously, be relevant to every section.

Here again is a class that can afford to wait and would be willing to wait. I am opposed to the passing of this section until the Government reconsiders the fundamental question that we have been discussing here.

I am glad that the Minister has agreed that the people of Easter Week should get this recognition, and I am glad that the principle which we have been arguing all the evening has been accepted in that respect. I feel that the section should have been extended to cover people who contracted disease between the years 1924 and 1939. There is a large number of these, but not a number that would be of any great financial burden on the State. They are suffering very severely themselves.

I suggest to the Minister that the whole matter of this section and of all the sections of the Act should be reconsidered. This piecemeal legislation is not good. If this section, when it applies to the people of 1916, is a token of what the Minister would be prepared to do for those who contracted disease and received injuries in the period 1924 to 1939, it is a good principle to accept; and, as far as I am concerned, the Minister is to be congratulated upon this particular section, where he accepts the principle, and I would suggest to him that he extend it.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 21.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • 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 (Junior).
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again.
Top
Share