Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Oct 1943

Vol. 91 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £207,022 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for Wound and Disability Pensions, Further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932, No. 15 of 1937 and No. 2 of 1941); Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, No. 43 of 1934 and No. 33 of 1938), Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936); Payments in respect of Compensation for Members of the Local Defence Force (No. 28 of 1939); and for sundry contributions and expenses in respect thereof, etc.

The Estimate for the Army Pensions Vote for the Financial Year, 1943-44, provides for the payment during the year of 16,251 pensions and allowances under the various Acts and schemes at a cost of approximately £658,097. The Estimate proceeds on the basis that when it was framed there were already on payment 14,057 pensions at an annual recurring charge of £509,880, and it provides in addition for 2,194 new pensions at an estimated annual charge of £43,943. These new pensions will, however, carry arrears in a number of cases especially under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, and the cost of the arrears is estimated at £104,274. Thus, the recurring charge in respect of the 16,251 pensions provided for is about £553,823 a year and that figure with the arrears brings the total gross charge for the year up to £658,097.

The pensions already under pay are set out specifically under the various sub-heads of the printed Estimate, but the new pensions and arrears now provided for are as follows:—

		£
95	Wound and disability pensions (sub-head E) costing	14,371
58	Dependents' allowances (sub-head F) costing	2,085
1,970	Military service pensions (sub-head I) costing	122,141
43	Defence Forces pensions (sub-head J) costing	6,620
28	Local Defence Force pensions (sub-head M) costing	3,000
2,194	Pensions costing	148,217

Hence pensions already under payment at £509,880 and new pensions (with arrears) at £148,217 give a gross charge for the year 1943/44 of £658,097, but from this must be deducted remissions in respect of nonpayment of pensions due to deaths and also to abatements of pensions owing to the receipt of public moneys from other sources. These remissions or deductions are estimated at £257,716, so that the net charge for pensions borne on this Estimate for the financial year is £600,381.

In addition to the cost of pensions, the Estimate also bears the cost of gratuities awarded for various reasons. There are, for instance, wound gratuities payable under the Army Pensions Acts of 1927 and 1932 to persons whose degree of disablement is less than 20 per cent. There are remarriage gratuities payable to widows in lieu of pensions when they remarry; there are married gratuities granted in certain circumstances to married officers on retirement from the forces; there are dependents' gratuities payable in certain cases to the dependents of deceased personnel, and there are finally the service gratuities payable to short service officers and other ranks on the completion of a certain number of years' service. The amount provided for all gratuities in the present Estimate is £12,265, made up as follows:—

	£
Wound gratuities (sub-head E)	1,000
Remarriage gratuities (sub-head F)	140
Dependents' gratuities (sub-head F)	225
Married officers' gratuities (sub-head J)	9,000
Service gratuities (sub-head J)	1,900
Total	12,265

Awards in respect of death or injury sustained by members of the Local Defence Force have hitherto been administered by the Department of Finance on reports made by the Army Pensions Board. As and from April 1st, 1943, however, the administration was taken over by the Department of Defence, and, consequently, this feature appears for the first time in the Army Pensions Estimate under sub-head N. The figures of £1,000 and £200 which appear under that heading for the year 1942-43 have been transferred from Vote 16 simply for the purpose of comparison with the figures inserted for 1943-44. The increase from £1,200 to £3,480 is entirely due to the number of cases which are expected to qualify for payment during the Financial Year.

Of the three statutory boards which have been dealing with Army Pensions, only one, the Army Pensions Board, will be on a full-time basis during the year. The Military Service Registration Board, having finished its work, has disappeared completely from the Estimate. The referee and advisory committee has almost completed its work, but owing to appeals against awards made, it is necessary to make provision for the part-time employment of its members, and of a small skeleton administrative staff during the year. The Estimate for this Service, accordingly, shows a decrease of £5,680 for the year. The Army Pensions Board has almost completed its work under the various Acts dealing with disablement, but as was pointed out last year, the board, in addition to dealing with the Army Pensions Acts, has also to deal with the various compensation schemes made under the Emergency Powers Orders. Moreover, the Army Pensions Bill, 1943, has become law, and that alone necessitates the full-time employment of its members during the year. The total cost, therefore, of the statutory bodies. during the year is £3,874, a reduction of £6,293 in the corresponding figure of last year.

The remainder of the Estimate deals with what may be termed incidentals. They are of a varied nature and include:—

Surgical and medical appliances (sub-head G)	£300
Hospital treatment (sub-head H)	1,000
Miscellaneous expenses (sub-heads L and N)	702
Travelling and subsistence allowances of applicants	2,000
Total	£4,002

Hence the Estimate for Anny Pensions for the year 1943-44 may be summed up under the following four heads.

Cost of pension awards (including arrears)	£ 600,381
Cost of gratuities	12,265
Cost of administrative statutory bodies	3,874
Cost of incidentals	4,002
Total	£620,522

Mr. Cosgrave

The only comments which I have to make on this Estimate are in connection with wounds and illness which have arisen through Army service. Applications for pensions under these heads should be dealt with expeditiously. I would say that, even if that course were to mean an increased cost, it would be money well spent. Some little time is allowed to elapse between the filling in of the forms and the consideration of these cases. The Minister would be well advised to have that period cut down as much as possible so as to ensure an early hearing of the cases and an early decision. The other case to which I propose to make reference arises in respect of a claim made by a man who had served as a commissioned officer in Easter Week, 1916. He subsequently joined the Army. Although I was intimately acquainted with him I was not aware of that. He became a sergeant in the Army and, although he had longer service by reason of having been in the Army, he qualified for a pension at the smaller rate. If he had not given notice of his Army service, he would have qualified for a pension of £10 a year. But, having informed the Minister that he had Army service, and due to the fact that he went out as a sergeant, as a non-commissioned officer, his service as assessed at £5 instead of £10.

I had a good deal to do with the drafting of the first Military Service Pensions Act, and although this case has been dealt with strictly in accordance with the statute, it was not the intention either of the framers of that Act or of the Parliament that passed it that any person qualifying would get a pension at a lower rate than the rank in which he had served during the period of hostilities in 1916 would entitle him to. This is the only case of its kind that has arisen. I know that it would mean an amendment of the law to settle this case, and that under the rules of the House governing the discussion of the Estimates it is not in order to do that. It can be settled by the Minister himself reconsidering it. It is the only one of its kind that has arisen in respect of all those men who served during the period I have referred to. The Minister could settle this case in this way: he could insert in the Pensions Vote each year a gratuity to meet the case so that the assessment of this man's pension would be on the basis of the rank that he held when leaving the Volunteers.

Mr. Hogan

In connection with the administration of military service pensions I expected that that question would have received more discussion. We cannot close our ears to the fact that there has been a clamour over the administration of the Military Service Pensions Act. Everywhere we hear criticism of the manner in which it has been administered and complaints have been made to the Minister from several quarters that in cases where men participated in the same engagement some have been awarded military service certificates and pensions while others were not. There can be no doubt that there is something wrong about the administration of the Act when complaints of that kind are made continuously. The Minister will probably say, as he did to a deputation that he received, that he had very little to do with the definition of "active service", although he gave them to understand that there were certain cases in which he would have liked to have pensions paid. Military service is not defined in the Military Service Act of 1924. It is defined as "active service of a certain kind". The Act does not go farther than that. That is where I disagree with the administration of the Act by the Minister and by the Government. They left the definition to men who did not know anything about active service. If they had left the definition of "active service" to men who had experience in the Irish Army or in some other army one could understand that there was some force in that procedure. The definition "active service" was left to men learned in the law and we now have the anomalous position, that to-day of two men who participated in the same action A gets a pension but X does not. Take the case where there was an ambush of Crown forces and that an outpost was a half-mile away from the scene, the men there might be in as grave danger as those who opened the attack, but they get no pensions. I could quote various cases of that kind.

I am sure the Minister knows from the clamour throughout the country that the present position is not a satisfactory one. I want to have these cases examined, because there is a good deal of injustice in many of them, or they have not been properly dealt with. I suggest to the Minister that if he wants a definition of "active service" he might have gone to the British Act for it. Even though we are slow to take a lead from the British in these matters, seeing that we have taken it in other things, there is no reason why we should not accept something that is good, even from erstwhile enemies. Section 189 of the British Army Act of 1881, defines active service as follows:

...the expression "on active service," as applied to a person subject to military law, means whenever he is attached to or forms part of a force which is engaged in operations against the enemy, or is engaged in military operations in a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy, or is in military occupation of any foreign country.

Surely, some of those who are administering the Act knew of that definition, and could introduce at least some of the principles embodied in it for our own people. While I do not want to delay the House now, I could occupy some time indicating the kind of cases that came before me, in which it would seem obvious that injustice was done. Will the Government make any further examination of these cases, or is the decision final? Unless new evidence is produced, are they not going to reopen these cases? I have to be particularly careful in this matter, because I do not want to prejudice any case. Is the Minister prepared to have some of the old cases re-examined on the merits of the evidence already in possession of and on the files of the Department? Any unprejudiced person who examines them will say that there is a prima facie case there for the issue of military certificates and pensions. I should like to know what the Minister is prepared to do about it. I examined from 100 to 150 cases, and in at least 40 per cent. there was a prima facie case for the issue of military certificates and military pensions.

Mr. Corish

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, in various parts of the country, a great deal of dissatisfaction prevails because of the action of the board in cases where people made application for pensions. I want the Minister to state definitely whether he proposes to reopen any of these cases. Some of the cases that were submitted appeared to be obvious cases in which pensions should have been conceded. For the last three or four years I called attention to the position in Enniscorthy. I can say that, outside of Dublin, no place did so much during Easter Week as Enniscorthy, a town that was under the control of the Republican Army for over a week. A large number of young men in that town were in the Irish Republican Army. They went through a good deal of hardship and took part in certain engagements both inside and outside the town. Despite that a very small proportion of the men who were in engagements there received pensions. Referring, to the statement made by Deputy Hogan, it seems very peculiar that, in some cases, A received a pension while X, who fought alongside him, did not. The old I.R.A. have an organisation in Enniscorthy which repeatedly put the claims of these men before the Minister and his advisers, but they did not seem to get anywhere. I understand that since the general election some of the cases have been resurrected and that promises have been made that they will be reheard. Great dissatisfaction prevails not only in that area but throughout County Wexford at the present position, especially where men took their lives in their hands during that troubled period and also during the Black-and-Tan period. If cases are again submitted to the Minister will he see that they are reheard and not take up the attitude that he has taken up, that these cases are definitely closed? I am satisfied that a mistake has been made in some cases and that there was injustice towards those who went out and risked their lives during Easter Week and carried on until the Treaty. Something should be done about these cases because the men have not been fairly treated.

Mr. Corry

I know the difficulties the Minister has to contend with and I know also the difficulties of the referee in this matter. From personal knowledge, I know that men's applications for pensions have been turned down on the very same evidence on which others got pensions, and I think that this clause which sets out that unless fresh evidence is brought in, the cases cannot be reopened, is wrong. If the board went through the cases again on the basis of the evidence already tendered, they would find that they had made mistakes. I have particularly in mind two cases, which I took up on appeal, of men who were turned down. One of these men got 4½ years' pension on the very evidence produced at the time he was turned down as not being entitled to any pension. The Minister would, I think, be wise to reopen this matter because there is very widespread dissatisfaction with regard to it.

Mr. Looney

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the treatment meted out to some men who gave good service to the State. I have before me the case of a man who gave great service during the I.R.A. struggle. He fought for his country and reached the rank of captain. He joined the Army as a private in the early part of the emergency and later received a commission. Unfortunately he became ill, following pleurisy, and had to go into St. Bricin's Hospital for nearly 12 months. Three weeks before his death, he was asked to send in his resignation. He died in the Mater Hospital, leaving a wife and four children. His I.R.A. pension died with him and no provision was made for his widow and family. They are still in need, and nothing has been done for them by a grateful country. I ask the Minister to take particular note of cases such as that. I do not accept the principle that if a man becomes ill while in the Army, the authorities can say that his illness is not attributable to military service. That is a very easy "get out" for the Minister and for the Department. Provision should be, and I hope has been, made in the new Pensions Bill for such persons as I allude to.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

I want to draw the Minister's attention to one point which has, I think, been raised here already. It is the case of a man who contracts, as quite a number have contracted, tuberculosis while in the Army. He is invalided out on a certain date and no payment is made either for hospital expenses or as a gratuitous award for injuries received. I do not want to press the Minister unduly, but I think it is an extreme hardship that in cases in which this disease has been contracted and the Army authorities decide that it was contracted as a result of military service, no payment is made, and there is in fact no contact whatever between the Army authorities and the individual or his family. I should like the Minister to consider carefully the repercussions of that position not alone on the particular family but on the general opinion as to the attention meted out to such people. I ask him to try to expedite the matter in some way so that the moment a man is invalided out, the case will either be gone into, or an assurance given that, if a return of medical and hospital expenses is furnished, it will be paid out of State funds.

Mr. O'Donnell

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one very pleasing incident which has come to my notice. On a Sunday afternoon, three soldiers were having a stroll a few miles from Cahir. They were asked by a local farmer who was very short of help to assist with the hay, as rain impended. The three soldiers went into the field and, with the help of a few neighbours, completed the job. They had tea and a sing-song, and then the farmer tendered payment.

Mr. Traynor

Is this on the Army Vote?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is waiting to discover whether it is or not.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister will be very pleased to hear this. Those soldiers refused payment. They said: "We were helping with the food supply and we would make servile work of it if we accepted payment." That was a grand gesture. It may be a small Army, but——

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that got to do with pensions?

Mr. O'Donnell

Nothing.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then it is not in order.

Mr. Corish

And one of them was a Wexford man?

Mr. O'Donnell

He was. I thought it was a beautiful gesture.

An Ceann Comhairle

It may have been, but it is irrelevant.

Mr. O'Donnell

They would make a servile work of it, if they had taken money. It was a grand gesture.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy should have brought that up on the Army Estimate.

Mr. Allen

I want to add my voice to that of Deputy L. Cosgrave, because I know of a couple of cases of men recently discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis. They were discharged and left without any means whatever. In one case, the man had sufficient stamps to get only 6/- per week. These men should not be discharged from the military hospital until they have got a gratuity, a pension, or whatever they are entitled to under the Army Pensions Act. I understand they will be entitled to pensions, but what the delay in making payment will be, I do not know. It will probably be fairly considerable, as the men will have to set out to prove everything. They will have to prove that they were discharged suffering from this disease, when the Army authorities are already aware of it. The pensions should be automatic before a man is discharged from the hospital, so that he may have some means to build up his health after discharge.

A number of men are discharged each year, and in the past they were thrown on the local authorities, with no provision whatever made for them. This was very much the case in the past, but it has been altered by the recent Army Pensions Act, and I believe they are now entitled to pensions, if they are discharged suffering from tuberculosis. They were taken into the Army as physically fit, and I hope it will not be pleaded by the Army authorities, the Minister or the Department, that they were suffering from tuberculosis, or some other disease, when taken in. They should not have been taken in if there was anything wrong with their health.

I want to stress the necessity for making provision for these men before they are sent into the local sanatorium or sent to live with their own families. There should be some provision whereby the State would transfer them at the expense of the State to the local sanatorium. That would be far better than sending them back to their own families, where there may be young children or others who may contract the disease. I am sorry to say that the Army authorities have been very remiss all along in their treatment of these men suffering from tuberculosis. They were either sent home to become a burden on the local authorities, sent to the local sanatorium or allowed to go anywhere they wished. The Army medical authorities should make provision for their treatment before they are discharged from their control.

With regard to the other matter of military service pensions and the general dissatisfaction which prevails in the country, I think the Minister is fully aware of the position. I, as well as almost every Deputy, have brought it to his notice on many occasions, and the fact that so few men qualified under the 1934 Act has been a source of great dissatisfaction all over the country. With regard to the 1916 men in Enniscorthy, it is well known that, while a substantial number of pensions have been granted in Enniscorthy, there are men there who gave outstanding service during and previous to Easter Week, who were the associates and comrades in every single operation or action of men who have already received pensions, but who have not been awarded pensions. No member of the local committee and no member of the old I.R.A. in that locality can see any difference between their service and the service of those who have already been awarded pensions. I think, in ordinary common justice, the Minister should have a number of these cases reopened. I do not know what to say as to the legal point that there must be new evidence before the case can be reopened. There is no new evidence available in these cases that have been turned down. In 99.9 per cent. of the cases, every scrap of evidence that was available has been put before the Referee and the advisory committee, but it failed to convince them in a number of cases that the men had active service or service that would come under the definition "active service", notwithstanding the fact that it could be shown that their comrades who had similar service had qualified for and received service certificates.

In regard to the men who served in 1919, 1920 and 1921 in the rural areas, especially in the towns, there are numbers of men who have been treated, to my mind, unfairly, whose service certainly would justify their getting a service certificate. They are men who, if they had been caught by the British military, would have found their graves immediately. These men are not deemed to have had active service during the period, according to the finding of the Referee. The final finding of the Referee is: "The Referee is of opinion that you are not a person to whom the Act applies." I think no greater insult could be offered to many of those men than that final notice from the Referee. They gave of their best. They gave the best years of their life. They gave their whole heart and energy in military service at that particular time.

I know it is not in order to suggest new legislation on this Estimate, but I would suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the whole position and provide that the men who have been refused service certificates and who, it can be shown, gave good service over that period, will at least get a gratuity covering that period. I wish to emphasise that there is genuine dissatisfaction amongst men who helped to build this State 20 and 25 years ago.

Mr. Beegan

A great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed with the way in which the Pensions Act has been administered. I believe there is a number of men who have genuine grievances. At any rate, they sincerely believe that they have genuine grievances. But, there is one implication that I would not like to go out to the people who applied for pensions, that is, that the board was influenced by something other than evidence that was put before them. That implication, apparently, underlies certain of the statements that have been made here this evening. I believe that the board acted in accordance with the evidence that was submitted to it and that, if the applicants have a grievance, it is principally because they did not make as good a case to the board as other persons did and also, perhaps, because their verifying officers did not go into their cases as minutely or as carefully as they might have. I have heard it stated this evening by a Deputy that there was a case turned down and when he went in with the very same evidence that had already been submitted—I suppose he went in as verifying officer—he succeeded in getting a military service certificate for that particular applicant. I imagine that would be impossible unless he cited the case of a person who got such a certificate for activities similar to those of the applicant with whom he was concerned, and was given an opportunity, perhaps, to correct some of the statements that were made by the applicant. Such opportunities were given in the early stages.

I sincerely wish that in all genuine cases, when facts are put up, when other persons in the same locality have received service certificates for similar service, without having any further evidence put before him, the Minister would have the cases reinvestigated with a view to giving applicants the greatest opportunity possible to make their case and so eliminate, once and for all, this implication that the board and the Referee were influenced by some consideration other than the evidence.

On one occasion I went to the board on behalf of a particular applicant who was given a service certificate for a period but who believed he should be allowed longer service. One of the first questions was, was I a verifying officer for that particular area. I replied that I was not. They said: "If you are able to submit any evidence to substantiate this man's claim it will be considered, but there is one thing that we wish to emphasise, that is, that we will give as much consideration—in fact, we will give more—to the representations of any person other than a T.D., if he is not a verifying officer for the particular area."

Mr. O'Leary

I wish to join with Deputy Corish, Deputy Allen, and the other Deputies. I come from Enniscorthy town, where the rising took place. I know there is great grievance there on the part of many men who took part and who have been turned down as not being persons to whom the Act applied. To my knowledge, they were actively engaged right through the whole campaign. In that very town of Enniscorthy there is a widow whose husband signed the Proclamation of 1916. He died a young man and she is now at the mercy of the ratepayers. I am sure if the Minister will refer to his files he will know to whom I refer. There is great dissatisfaction all over that town. Some people have got pensions. Others who have just as good a case and just as good a claim have been turned down. I would ask the Minister, in the interests of harmony among the old I.R.A., to see that all those who served the country and who took their stand in 1916 are given every consideration. If he cannot give them a pension, he should give them a gratuity, as the British Government did for their soldiers when the war was over. If the Minister were to do that, he would be going a long way to serve the people who, by their service, established this House as it is to-day, and put the Taoiseach and the present Ministers into power. I would ask the Minister to have all these applications that have been turned down as not being persons to whom the Act applies, reopened. By doing that he will satisfy the men who went out in 1916 to give us the measure of freedom that we have in Enniscorthy and in Dublin. These are the men who should be considered not people who, through Party influence, and friends, have got pensions. Give pensions to the serving men. I know that in the town of Enniscorthy genuine cases have been turned down. I would ask the Minister to review the whole Act. The Fianna Fáil Government brought in that Act. Those who went out in 1916 did not ask for pensions. It was the Government that brought in the Act. Why not apply it now to the people who deserve it?

Mr. Cafferky

I have not been in the House during the greater part of this debate but I understand it deals with pensions for the old I.R.A. Many Deputies, I understand, are annoyed because of the fact that certain men have been deprived of pensions while others are getting pensions. They claim that all these men have done something at some time or other to secure the freedom of this country. I think, myself, that these men for whom Deputies are so anxious to get pensions are, no doubt, very useful at the time of an election. They are very handy at canvassing, painting walls and so forth, but I wonder where are we going to end if we are to pension everybody? What is going to happen the State and the financial position of the State? I know that down in my area there are men receiving pensions and no man or woman there could tell me why they received them. I am 32 years of age but I can remember 1916. In fact, I can remember the declaration of war in 1914, although I was only then three years. That may seem amusing to some Deputies but it is a fact; I have reason to remember it.

I should like to ask, did the men who went out in 1916 or who were in the movement prior to going out in 1916, in the days from 1913, really go out thinking that they were going to survive the revolution and get a pension or did they go out purely from a sense of patriotism? I think they went out purely from a sense of patriotism and that pensions were the last thing that ever crossed their minds. To-day we have every type of man coming along telling us he did something which entitled him to a pension, but I know a lot of them who did not. They were under the bed when they were needed. I know an area in which there are a large number of persons drawing pensions. In that district, one day a Black and Tan came along and took out an ordinary businessman to paint "God Save the King" on the wall. I am just wondering where these men who are now drawing pensions were on that occasion. To-day some of these men are receiving pensions of £60, £70, £80 and £90 a year. I am opposed to such men getting pensions and I am not afraid to say so, whether I am going to lose or gain votes by it. I think the best course to adopt is this, if there are a number of them to be satisfied—and I believe they run into thousands—the Minister should hold a strict inquiry into the whole thing to find out who are the I.R.A. men who were wounded during the trouble and who, on account of such wounds, cannot earn their livelihood, men who are not physically fit, or whether there are widows of men who were killed during the trouble. They may be entitled to assistance from the State seeing that they have been deprived of the means of earning a livelihood but, surely to goodness, no Deputy or Minister will tell me that a physically fit man, who is as capable of earning his livelihood as any Deputy in this House, is entitled to a pension because he was supposed to have done such-and-such a thing during the trouble, although there is not the slightest proof for it. I can take Deputies from either side of the House and point out to them certain men and I defy anybody to prove that they did anything from 1916 to 1922, yet these men are drawing £60, £70 and £80 a year. Some of them are married to lady teachers drawing £360 a year, and they have big businesses besides. The fact is the State cannot stand it.

Mr. Hogan

Will you vote against this Estimate?

Mr. Cafferky

That is another point altogether.

Mr. Hogan

If you are in earnest you will vote against it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This House has passed a statute authorising the payment of pensions, and it is too late in the day now to start criticising it.

Mr. Cafferky

It may be too late in the day, but when you find Deputies standing up asking the Minister to consider such and such a group, asking the Minister to be soft-hearted, not to turn down the claim of any of these men, because some of their neighbours are getting pensions, that Mr. Brown did not do anything more than Mr. Thomas, then it is time we cried a halt to all this. I think I am fully entitled to say that the whole thing is a farce. That is what it is, and if the question were put to the country the people would tell you what they think of it. They are quite fed up with the pension racket, and that is what it is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A statute was passed authorising these pensions. The House has already approved of that.

Mr. Cafferky

I doubt if the country approved of it. The people did not know what was happening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was the country returned the Government to this House to do that. The Deputy is not in order in criticising the statute now.

Mr. Cafferky

That was never put before the country as an issue. It was a piece of legislation brought in by the Government on their own account.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Government were entitled to do that.

Mr. Cafferky

The point I want to make is this. It is not that I want the Government to alter legislation, but I want the Government to draw the line, to realise that the State cannot exist, if we are to continue giving a pension to every man who comes along and claims that he participated in the I.R.A. movement from 1916 to 1922. We do not doubt the sincerity of these men and we do not doubt that some of them played a great part in the movement, but the fact is that the State cannot afford all this expenditure. Although there may be some who did more than others, I submit and I say it here publicly, that no man is entitled to a pension unless he suffers from some physical disability by reason of service in the movement, in other words, unless he is a wounded man, or on the other hand, unless the pensioner is the widow of a man who lost his life during the fight. Such people are entitled to something but to say that a physically fit man, who is capable of earning a livelihood, should receive anything from £100 to £300 a year, plus in some cases, a good position—well, I think there is something terribly wrong there. In fact there is one word only that I can use to describe it. I feel it is corruption.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw that. These pensions are awarded under an Act passed by the House.

Mr. Cafferky

If that is not pleasing to the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to withdraw.

Mr. Cafferky

I withdraw the remark but that is my private opinion.

Mr. Allen

Chair, chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw the remark or I shall not permit him to proceed. It must be an unqualified withdrawal or the Deputy will have to accept the consequences.

Mr. Cafferky

I withdraw it but even though I withdraw it there is another way of putting it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no other way.

Mr. Allen

Chair.

Mr. Cafferky

I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking. There is another way of looking at it and it is my intention to bring this to the Minister's notice, that outside the House the country is not satisfied. The Minister and the House knows that. Deputies sitting here on the Fianna Fáil benches who brought about this legislation, and helped to put it through, know it. Deputies opposite know that the State to-day is taxed beyond the burden it can bear and that there is no extra commodity on which it can impose taxation to increase the income of the Exchequer, except the commodities of the working class—tea, sugar, butter or bacon. It is wrong to increase taxation on those commodities in order to give pensions of some kind or another to men who are supposed to have fought and in regard to whom we have got no evidence whatsoever to substantiate their claims.

If I wished to be one of those who would stand up and say that the I.R.A. are entitled to pensions, I might get a pat on the back down the country but, while I know that my attitude may do me a certain amount of harm in the future for not supporting those people, I believe in speaking the truth, in speaking the mind of the people who sent me here. They are completely fed up and think it will not be long until every Tom, Dick and Harry has a pension and no one will work at all, and they are asking where the money is to come from to pay them. Is it right that an able-bodied man should receive a pension while weak children and unemployed people are on the verge of starvation in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere? Is that Christianity, humanity or social teaching in accordance with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII? The Minister knows well it is not. Deputies here try to belittle a Deputy who has not as much experience of the House as they have, and try to undermine him, but I would like to see them go before their people and say some of the things they say in this House. They have a different method of putting things over to the semi-literate people of their constituencies.

Mr. Allen

This is a Hyde Park speech.

Mr. Cafferky

The Deputy would not have the courage to go to Hyde Park, to stand up and back a principle that I supported there. Better men than I—Redmond and John Dillon—stood in Hyde Park. The Deputy should not refer to that. Does he think that I am ashamed of that? The corruption of the Fianna Fáil policy sent me there—the rottenness and the bad foundation on which it was built.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

If the Deputy who spoke would close his mouth and not show his ignorance before the House, I would be able to continue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy look at his Book of Estimates or get a copy?

Mr. Cafferky

I have a copy here. There are another 24,000 recommended for pensions, or cases which are to come before the jury. Out of that number, if they are men or women who have been deprived of their livelihood through physical inability, due to the part they played in the War of Independence, they should be entitled to some assistance; but no man who i& physically fit is entitled to any assistance, at a time when this country is facing so grave a crisis, when there are thousands of unemployed, and little children in the streets of Dublin at the age of six or ten standing opposite the bus stops and singing songs in order that people may give them a few coppers. In a House that claims to represent the people and to legislate in a Christian manner, it is a terrible thing that we should have an Estimate to allow certain pensions to men of physical fitness, many of whom are well off. It is time to cry "Halt", and make a change, and therefore I bitterly oppose the Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy does not seem to appreciate that the Act has been enacted and that we are dealing with the administration of it. The House is not now legislating.

Mr. Cafferky

I know that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would be very glad if the Deputy would remember it.

Mr. Cafferky

I am merely giving a certain amount of criticism, which should have been given when the legislation was being passed. I suppose some of the Deputies who are laughing now, perhaps, were absent at that time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is free to go to the country outside and get a majority of the people to give him power and authority to come in here to repeal that statute; but that is not now before the House. The only thing before the House is this Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

It is a supplementary item to the Army Estimate, is it not?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No; it is Vote 64—Army Pensions.

Mr. Cafferky

I am dealing not so much with the regular Army as with what is known as the old I.R.A., and with the pensions which Deputies are advocating should be allocated to them in the near future. That is what I am trying to get in. Perhaps some of the Deputies in the House are taking the opportunity to baffle me or mislead me or get me off my trend of talk, due to the fact that they themselves are advocating pensions for men who have been deprived up to now and have not been considered by the Minister for Defence. I am opposing that and ask the Minister not to consider those gentlemen.

Mr. Kennedy

What about, the £1,500,000 in R.I.C. pensions?

Mr. Cafferky

That is another question. The Deputy is trying to bring me up another line. He can talk about the R.I.C. when he gets outside to the electorate. I want it to be understood and to go out from this House that the highest appreciation is due to the men who fought in Easter Week and, though I may object to this, I lift my hat to those men and have 100 per cent. respect for them. I admire those men and think no tribute is too good to pay to them. However, we must remember that this country, financially, cannot stand the burden of giving pensions to each and every one, irrespective of the great or little part they played from 1916 to 1922. I am not trying to belittle their ability or patriotism, but it is unfair to ask the country to stand that financial strain, when the money could be put to better use, to feed the children and help the unemployed, in the form of assistance, instead of in pensions to the I.R.A. men to whom it is proposed to give pensions in the near future. In making that point, let no Deputy or anyone outside think that I underestimate the patriotism or greatness of the men of Easter Week. It is quite the opposite. If Pearse, Connolly and the patriots who died in Easter Week were alive to-day, I doubt if they would take a pension until the ideals they went out to fight for were achieved—and those ideals are as far from being achieved to-day as they were in Easter, 1916.

Captain Giles

I have great sympathy with the Minister in the administration of the Military Service Pensions Act. I believe he put himself in an impossible position and that it was not to-day or yesterday that position arose. It is my belief that both Governments brought this on their own shoulders. The Act should cover only the period from 1916 to 1921 and not one day further. All this has occurred because the period from 1921 to 1924 was taken in. If the period 1916 to 1921 were taken, there would be only a very small number and they would be easily handled, but now we find 60,000 or 70,000 applying for pensions, men who never gave a day's service to the country up to then. We know the few bands of men who went out in the three or four earlier years to fight for the country, and we know that those who came back after service in foreign countries, found in the villages and towns not the five or six men who had been doing the fighting but 200 and 300 men of all breeds and classes, men who were paid with British money to spy on the I.R.A. and who were now leaders on both sides from 1922 onwards. Recruiting was open for both sides and hundreds of thousands joined, not to help the country but to cut one another's throats.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not wish to interrupt the previous Deputy on this matter. The Deputy is an old member of this House and is criticising legislation. That is not in order. I do not like to have to interrupt him to insist on that.

Captain Giles

I would like to point out to the previous speaker that the I.R.A. were not job hunters.

Mr. Cafferky

I never suggested that.

Captain Giles

The Deputy said straight in this House——

Mr. Cafferky

I beg pardon. If the Deputy looks up the Official Report, he will find that that is not so.

Captain Giles

These men went out and gave us the right to speak, and the little Deputy who spent most of his life in England has the right to speak in this House. We of the old I.R.A. are as much entitled to our rights and to compensation for our services as the R.I.C., who are drawing a larger sum from the Irish Exchequer. There is not a word about that: I suppose they are the Deputy's friends. There is a curious mentality existing about this. Everyone wants to know why the I.R.A. are getting pensions. They know damn well why they are getting them. They never looked for them. The paltry sums they are getting will never break this country, and I am ashamed to have for a neighbour a man who never did a day's work for the country.

Mr. Cafferky

I would be glad to know what the Deputy did.

Captain Giles

I believe the board is doing its best under the circumstances, but while the period 1922-24 is allowed in, it is impossible for the board to do its duty, as there are too many bogus claims. If the old brigade areas were brought in, and the old brigade officers were consulted, they would get through the business more speedily, and the bogus claims would not be admitted. In some cases, there are legal men going before the board on behalf of applicants, while other men with genuine service and leadership are not asked for their ideas, and as a result there is a ramp. Another trouble is that active service was never properly defined.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not criticise legislation.

Captain Giles

I am not criticising it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Hogan

Active service is not defined in legislation, but is defined by administration, and I submit that the Deputy is entitled to criticise how active service was defined, as it was an administrative act of the referees.

Captain Giles

I believe it was never properly defined. In my own county, men were mobilised in two different places for an ambush, and some of them were actually in the ambush, while others were not, as the enemy did not come by their road. They were armed for the job, and they were entitled to the same consideration as the men who were actually on the ambush. There are many border-line cases which should be reconsidered. I know many of them myself—cases of good, honest men who are not claiming under false pretences, but who have given faithful service. There are not many of them in the country, and some of them are in poor circumstances. They are not "Trucelleers". There are not 2,000 of them. I would ask that border-line cases should be dealt with before this business is closed down. The pensions scheme has been going on too long. The brigade officers should be brought together in the different counties, to try every case once and for all, and then it should be finished off, or we will all have grey hairs before it is over. It is disgraceful to have the mentality in the country at the present time that these men did nothing but get money for themselves. That was a wrong impression, and no decent, honest Irishman should make such a statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not in order.

Captain Giles

I would ask the Minister to do his best to deal with the border-line cases and have the Pensions Board closed down as soon as possible.

Mr. Linehan

The House might as well be realistic about this. Everyone knows there have been complaints about the administration of the Act but, whether rightly or wrongly, most of the complaints arise out of the definition of active service. It would be well for Deputies to realise that there is a case before the High Court. at the moment and that judgment has been reserved on it. If there is any question arising as to the rights and wrongs of the action of the board and referees, the decision of the High Court on the present application will decide that. There is very little good in any Deputy arguing one way or the other here on the definition of active service or border-line cases, or in asking the Pensions Board or the Referee to change their view, as that matter will be settled once and for all when the decision is given.

Mr. Traynor

Deputy Linehan has made clear the point that was causing me much concern during the course of the debate. I find it very difficult to talk on the subject as to who should and who should not get a pension at this particular period when, as the House knows, there are a number of cases sub judice. Therefore, if I do not talk about them, the reason will be clearly understood. I will try as far as I can to remove a few doubts that have been in the minds of some of the speakers who discussed this Estimate. Deputy Cosgrave, who initiated the debate, requested that as far as possible we would expedite-the handling of applications for wounds pensions. I can assure the Deputy that we are doing everything possible in that respect. After the initial delay in putting the Act into operation, we have gone ahead in a fairly satisfactory manner. Of 557 applications, there are something like 417 under active consideration. As regards the other matter the Deputy raised, I am sure he will appreciate my difficulty. When I say I will look into it, he will realise that that may not solve it; there may be difficulties which will have to be overcome and the solution will not be solely in my hands. However, I promise the Deputy that I will give the matter careful consideration.

All I can say with reference to the question raised by Deputy Hogan is that the matter is one solely for the Referee. If additional evidence is produced for the Referee in respect of any case which he has decided, that case can be reopened. There have been suggestions running through the debate which would lead one to believe that the board was not acting honestly or straightforwardly—there was some such suggestion underlying the statements made. I want to assure the House that the board is composed, as most experienced Deputies know, of two civil servants, one looking after the interests of Finance and the other looking after the interests of Defence. Then there are two officers of the old I.R.A. holding high senior rank. These men have been placed there specifically for the purpose of ensuring that the rights of applicants will be given the fullest possible consideration. I am prepared to believe that that is being done, that these men are watching the interests of the applicants, while the other representatives are watching the interests of the Departments by whom they were appointed.

I do not share the belief that these pensions are granted on anything other than the merits of each case as presented to the board. If individuals present a prima facie case, the chances are 100 to one that that case will be sympathetically dealt with. I have had experience as a brigade verifying officer and I saw forms filled in which, in my opinion, and I was not a member of the board, would not have in any circumstances secured a certificate for the applicant. While it is possible that individuals may have had even letter service than that which they put in the form, the fact remains that unless it is in the form, the person examining that form can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the applicant has not a prima facie case which could be recommended for further consideration and, therefore, it is disposed of. The applicant has a period of 21 days in which he can appeal against the decision that he is not a person to whom the Act applies. It is then that he can produce all the evidence he can command in order to induce the board to take a different view. He can also call upon his verifying officer to produce evidence, and if the verifying officers, who are usually old brigade or battalion senior officers over these men, can produce evidence on his behalf, that he is a person to whom the Act applies then, on their sworn testimony —and you have to remember that everything presented to the board must be in the form of sworn testimony; they must have the sworn testimony of the applicant and the sworn testimony of the various witnesses— the decision may be changed, as it has been changed in a large number of cases.

I will repeat what I have said on former occasions, that the referee is the sole deciding authority, and I have no influence over the referee. Perhaps it is a good thing for the House that I have not, because if I were to act on the advice which I have received from numerous Deputies and deputations, I might be advising the referee along the same lines as I have been advised here this evening. But Deputies must remember that they have not the evidence which the referee has in detail, and upon which he makes his decision. The statements made by individuals who discuss these matters with Deputies are not made on sworn testimony; they are merely conversations and, naturally, these individuals will make the best possible case and Deputies will probably not question them very much. Deputies will then explain to me the cases that have been submitted to them. But the decision rests solely with the referee. He considers the evidence which is put forward to him from every quarter, and on that evidence he will base his decision. Beyond that I cannot say any more.

It is regrettable that Deputy Cafferky took up the particular line which he appeared to take up. We have in this House a perfectly equipped library—I am just mentioning this to the Deputy, because he has told the House candidly and frankly that he is a new Deputy who has not had a lot of experience here. The library is there for the use of Deputies to enlighten themselves on any subject on which they wish to address the House, and if Deputy Cafferky had gone to the trouble of ascertaining the position, he would have discovered that we have Acts dealing with wound and disability pensions, Acts passed in 1923, 1927, 1937, 1941 and 1943. All these Acts cover individuals who, if they have been wounded, can make application for pensions. The Deputy expressed the opinion that he had no objection to the payment of pensions to individuals who were wounded. All these individuals are fully covered by these Acts.

Mr. Cafferky

I did not suggest that I was not aware of such legislation. What I suggested was that a line should be drawn there and a halt made. No physically fit man is entitled to a pension—that was my suggestion.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy went on to say that he knew many people who were drawing pensions and who had no right to draw them. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Cafferky

Well, that they could not produce any really fundamental claim.

Mr. Traynor

All I have to say on that matter is this, that it is the Deputy's duty, if he knows of any individual who is receiving a pension to which he is not entitled, to inform me and give me evidence which will support his statement. If he does that, I will certainly undertake to see that that individual, if it can be proved that he is not entitled to the pension he is receiving, will have the pension taken from him. That is the only assurance I can give the Deputy. Unless the Deputy is fully aware that there are such persons, it is undesirable to state in this House that that is the case.

Mr. Cafferky

In making that statement what I wished to make clear was that there are men drawing pensions and that neither I nor a number of other persons can see what they have done to obtain the pensions. I should like to learn from the Minister the qualifications which they had to draw pensions.

Mr. Traynor

The Referee had particulars of the qualifications necessary to enable them to obtain the pensions. As regards the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, Junior, we are up against. the same difficulty that we were up against when discussing the Army Estimate. I refer to the question of men being invalided out of the Army. We keep them for the longest time possible. We notify them beforehand of their condition and we do what we can to help them to get accommodation outside. Beyond that, we can do nothing.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

Can you make no provision for the expenses they incur?

Mr. Traynor

Unfortunately, there is no fund upon which we can draw.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

I take it that if a person suffers from some disease as a result of Army service——

Mr. Traynor

If the disease is attributable to Army service, that is a different matter.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

That is the point I made. There was great delay.

Mr. Traynor

I took it that the Deputy was referring to T.B. cases invalided out of the Army, cases that had not been examined and, therefore, could not be said to be attributable to service. Under the 1943 Act, the cases to which the Deputy now refers are fully covered.

Mr. Hughes

Where a member of the family of a soldier dies, have you any fund to enable him to meet the expenses incurred?

Mr. Traynor

There is no official fund but there is a fund, which the Army operates.

Mr. Hogan

Has the Government any intention of reopening cases in which they themselves, or others who examined the cases, say there is a prima facie reason for re-examination unless something described as "new evidence" is forthcoming?

Mr. Traynor

Unless the Act is amended, we cannot do that.

Mr. O'Leary

What about people who got papers to attend, did not appear and got back word that they were not persons to whom the Act applied?

Mr. Traynor

If they can give good reason for their non-attendance on the first occasion, they will probably be heard.

Mr. Looney

Will the Minister say if any provision is made for the widows and orphans to whom I referred?

Mr. Traynor

Not under the 1934 Act.

Vote put and agreed to.