Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £11,185 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st 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, No. 2 of 1941 and No. 14 of 1943); 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 main purpose of the present Supplementary Estimate for the Financial Year 1943-44 is to provide funds for the payment of pensions authorised by the Army Pensions Act of 1943. That Act was passed on 27th April, 1943. It was, therefore, too late to be covered by the annual Estimates for 1943-44, and consequently a Supplementary Estimate is now necessary.

The Act of 1943 provides increased rates of wound pensions, pensions for disability due to disease, allowances for the widows and orphans and other dependents of deceased personnel, and special allowances for Easter Week men. The financial provision to cover these amendments and extensions of the Army Pensions Acts is contained in sub-heads E, F and O, of the present Supplementary Estimate. Sub-head E requires an additional gross sum of £5,298 to meet wound and disability pensions. It is expected, however, that there will be savings to the extent of about £3,500 under the sub-head, so that the net sum required will be only £1,798. The savings are due to the fact that we have less awards under the Acts of 1932 and 1937 than we had anticipated on framing the annual Estimate.

As regards allowances payable to the widows, orphans and other dependants of deceased officers and men (sub-head F), the gross sum required is £2,000. Here again, however, there are substantial savings under the sub-head, so that the net sum required is only the token figure of £10. The savings have accrued under the Acts of 1923 and 1937, and are mainly attributable to the death of beneficiaries. The special allowances for Easter Week men will cost this year about £2,370.

The Department is taking advantage of this Supplementary Estimate to rearrange its expenditure under the various sub-heads to reflect more exactly its financial commitments for the year. Thus, under sub-head I, which covers Military Service Pensions, it will require an extra £14,000, due to the fact that the average rate of pensions payable since the Estimate was framed was higher than expected.

As regards the salary sub-heads (C and Q) the sum of £1,700 under sub-head C is due to an increase of staff costing £800, and to gratuities paid to two members of the Referee and Advisory Committee when their full time employment ceased: and under sub-head Q gratuities paid to the three members of the Military Service Registration Board when the work of the board had been completed and the service of its members terminated.

Under sub-head K £1,000 is required to defray the expenses of applicants under the Army Pensions Acts, and witnesses under the Military Service Pensions Acts attending before the statutory bodies administering the Acts. Finally under sub-head P an extra-statutory grant of £30 is provided to rectify an error of administration. The total gross sum required under the eight sub-heads is, therefore. £27,248. Portion of that sum to the extent of £16,063 will be found from other sub-heads, leaving a nett sum of £11,185, which the Dáil is asked to vote.

Mr. Roddy

On what scale are gratuities paid to the members of the Military Service Pensions Board? Is there any scale or is it left entirely to the discretion of the Minister to pay whatever amount he considers appropriate for the work done?

Mr. Traynor

It is a year's salary.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

There is one matter which I should like to put before the Minister. I mentioned it on the Vote for the Minister's Department. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction in regard to the provision made for persons who are invalided out of the Army due to their having contracted T.B. while in the Army or as a result of an accident having occurred to them while in the Army. I mentioned a particular case to the Minister where a man was involved in an accident and the Army medical authorities attributed the fact that he later contracted T.B. to the accident. Ultimately he died from T.B. and no contribution whatever was made for hospital or medical expenses and, as far as I am aware, at any rate, up to a few months ago, no payment of any kind was made to his dependents. I ask the Minister to consider this whole question, because the net result of it is that people regard the Army as being rather callous in their treatment of men who contract tuberculosis. I am aware that the Minister has not sufficient sanatoria or other provisions to deal with the problem, but I think that, in cases where an actual accident occurs, he should consider carefully the expedition of payments or gratuities either to the person concerned or to his dependents. As far as I can see, there is far too much delay and there is general dissatisfaction as to the manner in which the inspection of cases and the granting of gratuities or other payments are carried out.

Mr. Hogan

I should like to reinforce what has been said with respect to expedition in the granting of pensions and allowances paid to dependents. I know of some cases that have been pending for 12 and 18 months while the people are in need of the money. There was one case where a soldier died of disease contracted in the Army and his dependents are looking for payment. The latest letter I have received from the Minister's Department says that the case will be considered as soon as the board has reported. The particular case I have in mind has been going on for over 12 months. There is another case of a similar nature. Some dissatisfaction is expressed as to the way in which these matters have been dealt with. I do not know whether the Minister has to wait for the board to report or by what means these decisions are arrived at, but several cases have come to my knowledge in connection with which a good deal of dissatisfaction was expressed as to delay. I ask the Minister, if it is at all in his power, to speed up the boards or the committees that consider these cases, in order to bring some relief to the people who are waiting for expenses incurred. I know of cases where even funeral expenses have not been paid.

Sir John Esmonde

I should like to know whether this Estimate provides any money for cases of ordinary accidents which occurred to members of the Defence Forces while in the employment of the State? I have in mind the case of a man proceeding on duty in a motor lorry which overturns, or of a soldier who, while working on a railway embankment, falls and injures himself. Does the Estimate provide for that type of injury? The actual words used are "wound or disability", but these matters crop up from time to time. In the case I have mentioned, of the soldier who, in the course of his duties as a soldier, was working on a railway embankment and who slipped and fell to the roadway. as a result of which he met his death —the case is not quite recent—there was a considerable amount of difficulty in obtaining even an ex gratia payment. If my memory serves me correctly, the man in question was the sole support of his mother.

There is also the other case, which I brought to the notice of the Minister some time ago, of the leader of the L.D.F. who co-operated with the regular Army in making a mine safe on the coast of Wexford. There was considerable confusion and difficulty in that case also, and eventually the applicant was refused any disability award of any kind, although it would seem to the ordinary lay mind that he was as much on active service as any of the soldiers engaged in dismantling the mine. There is then the case of the soldier who meets with an accident while being transported in an Army lorry.

These cases crop up from time to time, and, for some reason or other, they do not seem to get as ready consideration as the more spectacular cases of soldiers who are injured by bullets or explosives. I put forward these suggestions not in any critical spirit, but with a view to helping to maintain the feeling which should exist, that anyone who is prepared to leave his ordinary employment to serve as a temporary soldier, or otherwise co-operates in defending the State, should expect to receive, in return, full consideration when he meets with accidents of this kind.

Mr. Byrne

I should like to know, arising out of sub-head O—Special Allowances to Persons who served in Easter Week—if the Minister is aware that there is very grave dissatisfaction amongst a number of men who are suffering great hardships through unemployment at present and who have certificates of service for that period and are wearing their decorations? These service certificates and decorations do not carry with them anything in the way of a grant. It was stated by a deputation which saw a few members of the House some nights ago that a grant to these men in the present bad times would be very welcome. I appeal to the Minister to review these cases, to call in their certificates and to see if something cannot be done for these men who gave service during Easter Week which did not come under the heading of active service, in the sense of very strong action and not service in the movement generally. It was because of the hardships borne by these men that the deputation came to the House and asked that we should plead with the Minister to give them a grant. They drew attention to very high officials, enjoying big salaries, who were awarded pensions.

You can see some of these men wearing, with pride, their decorations, but these decorations carry no money award with them and, because of the present bad times, this deputation, representing the men from 1916 to 1922 —I am not sure if they represented men of the post-1922 period—asked me to raise the matter on a Bill whicn they thought was about to be introduced and to urge that the time had come for doing justice to them and for relieving them of the hardships they are going through. Some of them lost their jobs because of their service in 1916. They never got them back and are now casual workers seeking work wherever they can get it. I know the Minister has had many difficult cases to handle and probably this is a very big problem, but it provides an opportunity of reminding the Minister of the hardships which these men who served the country to the best of their ability are suffering and of asking that they should not be forgotten.

Mr. Allen

I want to refer to the matter raised by Deputy L. Cosgrave, that is, the discharge of soldiers who contract tuberculosis while in the Army. It is a position which has been very unsatisfactory for quite a long time. With the large numbers in the Army at present, and the intensive training which they have undergone in recent years, we are bound to have a large number of men contracting tuberculosis in the future. It seems to me that the Army authorities or the Government have not done all they might have done in the matter of the provision of sanatoria within the Army for the treatment of those who contract tuberculosis. Every Deputy knows a number of them who are thrown back into his constituency when very far advanced in tuberculosis. They are given no gratuity and are not provided with pensions, but are sent home to their families. The county medical officer finds them out in a few weeks or months, and has them transferred to the local sanatorium, if accommodation is available. If not, they are allowed to remain with their families, who run the risk of contracting the disease.

I urge that, with the large numbers in the Army at present, and the known possibility of increased numbers contracting tuberculosis on account of the strenuous life they have lived and must live while the emergency exists, sufficient sanatoria should be provided out of State funds for the treatment of these men. The present position is most unfair to the local authorities who have to provide for the tuberculosis patients in their own areas. They have not got accommodation even for those patients, and it is most unfair to the families of these soldiers and to the soldiers themselves. I suggest that if they are to be discharged from the Army, they should be kept, before discharge, in the Army hospitals, until such time as they have been given pensions, if they are entitled to them, and should not be sent home in a very low state of health and with no means whatever of maintaining themselves. It is absolutely callous the way these men are being treated, and the position has existed so long now that some provision should be made for their treatment in Army hospitals.

Mr. Hilliard

Under the Wounds and Disability Pensions Act, 1943, gratuities are provided for the dependents of soldiers in certain circumstances. I want to raise the question of a certain type of soldier—the soldier who happens to be illegitimate. If the mother of such a soldier otherwise qualifies for a gratuity, will the Minister tell the House whether or not such a woman will be told that she is not a mother within the meaning of this legislation? So far as the other points which have been raised are concerned, as to the treatment of soldiers discharged in bad health from the Army, I am sure the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

There is another type of case to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister, that is, the case of the young man who enters the Army with the consent of his employer and on the understanding that his employment will be available for him when he returns, who contracts illness other than tuberculosis during his service, of such a nature as to bring about his discharge on medical grounds from the Army. He returns to his employer and the employer, on account of the nature of his discharge, because his employable capacity is reduced and, more particularly, as the individual will be associated with machinery, decides that he cannot with safety employ him. The individual then finds himself with loss of his employment and without any compensation. Such a case has come under my notice.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to bring before the Minister the question of the Enniscorthy men who came out in 1916. Enniscorthy was the one town in which anyone came out in 1916 in support of the Rising in Dublin. Some genuine cases have been turned down by the Minister of men who were in uniform and carried arms in 1916 and did the same service as men already granted pensions: These men were told that they were not persons to whom the Act applied. According to the Act, any man who came out in 1916 was entitled to a pension. Some of these men in Enniscorthy got a medal for their service and, if they were entitled to a medal, I think they were entitled to a pension, because that proved that they had given service. Some of these were leading men in the movement right along from 1914 when the Irish Volunteers were established. On behalf of these men, and on behalf of the Old Comrades' Association and the Old I.R.A., it is my duty to ask the Minister, if he cannot see his way to grant them a pension, to grant them a gratuity. Some of them were working-class men who lost their employment by taking the action they took. In that town of Enniscorthy there were some men who were sentenced to death. That is proof that all these men had given service. This matter has created a great grievance in Enniscorthy and in the rural areas from which men took part. Their applications are genuine. Others who, through political pull, have been awarded pensions, had not as good a case as the men turned down. In a question to the Minister I submitted the names of 40 men who are prepared to prove to the Minister that their cases were genuine. If the Minister will reconsider these cases favourably he will satisfy a very discontented body of men who gave good service.

Now, with regard to the Army, in Enniscorthy there are also men who have been discharged from the Army as unfit on medical grounds. Some of them tell me that they had to fill in a form when they joined the Army stating that they would not claim any compensation. Other men lost their lives, some of them in the Wicklow explosion and, so far as I know, their dependents have received no compensation whatsoever. I think it is a very bad policy to expect young men to join the Army and ask them to fill in a form that they will not make any claim against the State if they meet with an accident or lose their health. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to these two classes of cases, especially the case of the men who were responsible for a Government being in power here to-day. Without these people we would not have our own Government in our own country. It was the men who came out in 1916 and who made sacrifices who are responsible for the fact that there is a Government functioning in this country at the present time.

Mr. Linehan

There are two points on which I should like the Minister to give us some information. At question time to-day, in reply to Deputy Flanagan, the Minister for Justice, replying for the Minister for Defence, said—if I interpreted the answer correctly—that there was no provision made for the expenses of applicants who appear before the Pensions Board. Deputy Flanagan was asking the Minister to take some steps to refund the expenses incurred by unsuccessful applicants and the reply was that there was no provision made for the expenses of applicants. From sub-head K of the Supplementary Estimate it would appear that there was provision made for the expenses of applicants because we are asked for the additional sum required to defray the expenses of applicants and their witnesses. There appears to be a contradictory position there because, if the reply to the question was correct and there was no provision made for the expenses of applicants, how is it that we are asked to vote an additional sum for the expenses of applicants? I ask the Minister to clear up that point because it might give rise to misunderstanding.

I was not quite clear as to what the Minister gave as his reason for the biggest item in this Estimate, an additional sum of £14,000 to meet the cost of pensions under sub-head I. I understood the Minister to say that it was because the rate of pension granted during the past year was higher than expected. Does that mean that pensions granted in the past year to applicants who were given pensions for the first time were at a higher rate than was anticipated? I cannot see how that could arise because, obviously, these applications must have been before the Pensions Board for a long time and it would be reasonable to assume that the original Estimate of the Department would be a fairly correct estimate of what the applicants were to get if they were awarded a pension. The jump of £14,000 seems rather excessive in view of the total Estimate. I should like the Minister to clear up these two points because his opening explanation did not leave them very clear.

Mr. Browne

I should like to ask the Minister if provision is made in the Estimate for the cases of discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis. In asking that question, I have in mind the case of a widow with two sons. One of these sons, who is 22 or 23 years of age, joined the Army in 1940 after being medically examined. He was discharged from the Army about six months ago as medically unfit, due to his contracting tuberculosis. I feel that in a case like that, when a young man responded to the call and did his duty and contracted a disease of this nature, special consideration should be given to it and he should not be sent home to depend upon his mother or his brother and sister to keep him. I feel that that case deserves attention from the Minister.

Mr. Anthony

A lot of questions have been raised about this matter and I would like the Minister to indicate publicly, by a statement issued from his Department, the action of his Department in relation to persons who have been invalided out of the Army because of T.B. or any other disease. I know a number of cases in Cork where there is a considerable amount of doubt, notwithstanding the fact that these men signed a declaration that, in the event of disability of any kind or character, they would not seek compensation. These are men who went out of good jobs and who have become debilitated in one way or another— both officers and men.

It would ease the mind of a whole lot of people if such a statement were made and it would give Deputies some little rest from the number of applicants who keep calling and writing. I felt that these cases were met by one or other of the regulations governing these matters, but I feel now that it would be very wise on the part of the Minister to publish a statement which would reach the ears and eyes of persons who feel that they are suffering under an injustice.

Mr. Corish

I agree with Deputy Anthony that there should be some definite statement from the Minister in connection with persons invalided out of the Army. Time and time again, those connected with public bodies come across cases of men who have contracted T.B. in the Army, or where T.B. has been aggravated by their Army service. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that a person, before being taken into the Army, has to sign a form declaring that, in the event of such and such happening, there would be no claim on the Department. After all, if a man is prepared to come forward and serve his country in the hour of need and, during the course of such service, contracts a disease like T.B., surely the Minister, the Department and the Government generally should not be so callous as to throw that man out on the roadside and do nothing about him. Such a man is usually a burden on the county council. Surely this matter should be attended to by the Government and should be a national charge. The Minister should make some definite statement on the situation.

I was not clear as to what the Minister meant when he was describing sub-head O—Special Allowances to persons who served in Easter Week. I would like the Minister to give us more information as to what that particular money is for. I, like others, want to protest against the delay in dealing with claims made by Old I.R.A. people for pensions. All over the country there is dissatisfaction in consequence of the fact that such a lengthy period is taken to deal with cases of this kind. In a great many cases, it is known generally that men have had service in the I.R.A., service during Easter Week, but, because of the fact that no officer can be got to come forward and give evidence in connection with that service, nothing has been done.

I have heard of a case where a man definitely gave service in Easter Week, but because the officer who was over him at that particular time now differs with him in politics, that man had been left without a pension. That may be the case in various parts of the country, and it is an unfortunate state of affairs. There might be others who would be prepared and in a position to give evidence on that man's behalf, and such evidence ought to be accepted. Time and time again, those of us who have represented Wexford over a period of years have referred to the position in Enniscorthy town. As the Minister knows, the I.R.A. in Enniscorthy turned out en masse in Easter Week and took control of the town. I do not think there was any other place outside Dublin where such a thing took place. It is a sad state of affairs to think that a lot of these men who took part in the Rising in Enniscorthy in 1916 are still dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to them by this Government and the last Government.

I could recite cases of men whom I know to have been engaged actively in Easter Week and who have been turned down. Many of them believe that they have service equal to, if not superior to, that of some of the people who have already received pensions. Some time ago, when I raised this matter here, the Minister promised to give special consideration to the cases I mentioned. I am wondering what has been done in that connection. I do know that the cases of a couple of the persons whose names I gave at that time have been brought up again for re-examination. Three cases have been sent to me recently. One is that of a man named Rafter of Ballindaggin, outside the town of Enniscorthy. Anyone who knows Enniscorthy knows that the name of Rafter stands out above every other name. This man's brother is the man who led the insurrection in 1916 in Enniscorthy—a man who sacrificed everything in the interests of his country. His brother is seeking a pension for the service he rendered in Easter Week and during the Black and Tan period. His service is known to everybody. Officers have tendered evidence on his behalf and he is still without any definite word from the Government as to his position.

There is another man who was attached to the garrison during Easter Week, named Somers. This man prepared all the ammunition necessary for Easter Week and for the periods which followed but, because he had not what the Minister considers to be an absolute engagement, his claim for pension has been turned down, although I understand that men who prepared munitions in Dublin and elsewhere have been given pensions. I would ask the Minister to give special attention to the claims of those who fought for their country and who created the situation which enables us to be here to-day. Everybody knows what the people in Enniscorthy did and a special inquiry should be made. If the evidence is not forthcoming through the orthodox channel, the Minister should endeavour to obtain it through some other channel. Everybody knows that the people in Enniscorthy who have been turned down were people actively engaged in fighting to bring about the independence of the country. I hope that the Minister will give special attention now to their claims.

Mr. F. Lynch

I also would like to refer to the very unseemly delay that has occurred in dealing finally with these pensions under the 1934 Act. That Act operates as from October, 1934, and it seems to me that, with nine years passed away, it would be time to have dealt with all the applications that have come before it. A year or two ago, a Referee had been operating on this whole-time, and suddenly, for some reason or another, he ceased to carry on the work whole-time and resumed his Circuit work, only dealing with this matter of military service applications in his spare time. That prolonged this question unnecessarily. If there had not been all that delay, there would not have been all these various applications to the High Court now, asking for reviews of one case or another. There was a great lack of expedition in dealing with these applications under the 1934 Act. I was glad to note that the Minister said recently that it was intended that the Referee should resume whole-time consideration of the remaining applications. I hope that that is so and that, by doing so and if necessary re-engaging the assessors who were with him—the I.R.A. representatives who were members of the Advisory Committee—the tribunal will sit until they finish the job.

Apart from the extraordinarily slow dealing with these applications, there is a huge number of persons who are dissatisfied with the result. That is very natural. We all know that, whether a person had a claim or not, he would feel that he was wronged. Undoubtedly, there is a huge number of applications to the Minister to have their cases referred back. These cases ought to be referred back quickly and the applicants informed of that, or else they ought to be told that since they have put forward no new evidence to show why they should be sent back, that they were not being sent back. The position is that they have been left in the air for a very long period. The board also ought to sit and deal with those cases which are being referred back. There are quite a number that ought legitimately be referred back because for some reason or another the board took a very narrow view in some cases. I will mention one case without giving any names. The attack on Rathmore police barracks in the County Kerry was deemed to be a major engagement. During the attack there were some bombs thrown through the windows of the barrack. The men who did that then fell back and fought, some of them with shot-guns and others with rifles. There were two men engaged in throwing the bombs through the barrack windows. One of them is a Chief Superintendent in the Gárda Síochána at the moment. The other is an ordinary small farmer who does some work as a building contractor. This man, living there in Rathmore, has been refused a pension even though the Chief Superintendent, who was his companion in throwing the bombs, vouched for the fact that he accompanied him in doing so, and then subsequently fell back about 50 yards and fought with a shot-gun which was the only weapon he had. The Minister has been asked to refer back that case, but I do not know what has happened about it. I met a good many of those fellows in the County Kerry and asked them to put the facts on affidavits, to send them to the Minister and ask him to have their cases referred back. There is a huge number of such cases, especially in the Kerry No. 2 area.

I have no doubt that cases of the kind are to be found all over the country. Neither have I any doubt that what some Deputy has said has happened in certain cases: that some of the local officers were so narrow, because of political differences 25 years afterwards, that they refused to vouch for the comrades who fought side by side with them in the campaign. That is hardly conceivable, but I believe it has been done. At any rate, whether through malice or otherwise, there has been a great deal of laxity by some of these brigade councils that were to act as verifying officers. They have fallen down, I think, very badly on their job in giving proper verification to the board. It is well to remember that the fault is not altogether that of the board. I am not really finding fault with the board because I think that things have been put badly before it. Any Circuit Court judge will naturally have to weigh the evidence that is submitted to him, and if it is not put before him in a convincing way well, naturally, he will treat the case as if it were before him in court. If he is not convinced he will turn down the case. A great deal of the fault is due, as I have said, to the brigade committees in failing properly to verify the activities of their comrades. I do not altogether hold with statements made to the effect that some of those lads, when they had looked after themselves and their pals, took very little care as regards the remainder of their comrades. I believe, however, there is some truth in that with regard to certain areas.

I do not come from Wexford, but I would like to support what was said by Deputy Corish and his colleague, Deputy O'Leary, on behalf of the 1916 men from Enniscorthy. My first meeting with the Wexford men who had been sentenced to penal servitude was in December, 1916, when they had been transferred to Lewes Prison, some from Portland and some from Dartmoor. There is no doubt whatever but that the men who went out in Enniscorthy and in Galway did, one might say, a bigger thing than those of us who went out in Dublin because they were a small bunch of men in the country, away from the stimulus that we had here at headquarters. I should like to see the Minister give special consideration to their cases. As I have said, I met most of those men who were out in Enniscorthy, in 1916, in Lewes Prison. Among them was the present Irish Minister in Washington, Mr. Bob Brennan, the late Mr. Seán Etchingham and others. Others of the Enniscorthy men were interned in Frongoch. They were actually out in company with the men who had been sentenced to penal servitude. Their coming out ought to be regarded as Easter Week service for them.

I was a member of the board which dealt with pensions under the 1924 Act. That Act dealt only with persons who had pre-Truce service and service in the National Army. Persons who had taken no part in the Civil War were not dealt with. Their time did not come until later when I.R.A. applicants were being dealt with. At that period, of course, no excuse was left for leaving out pre-Truce men who had remained neutral in the Civil War. But the men that we had to deal with under the 1924 Act were those who had pre-Truce service and service in the National Army during the Civil War. We set a headline before us of not giving active service for Easter Week, 1916, except in three areas: active service in the City of Dublin, active service in Galway with the late Liam Mellowes, and active service in Enniscorthy. Deputies may take it, therefore, that those of us who sat on the board under the 1924 Act accepted the fact that those men who turned out in Enniscorthy, in Easter Week, 1916, would be deemed to have had active service for that week. I think, therefore, that some little tribute might be paid to the small number of those men who survive 28 years after Easter Week, 1916. I think those men are entitled to have something done for them under the existing Act. I think that in any of those cases, where a substantial case can be put up, the Minister ought to refer them back to the Referee for reconsideration. I hope some steps will be taken to speed up the consideration of these applications and that the Circuit Court judge to whom is allotted the duty of acting as Referee will be taken from his circuit and told to sit down with Messrs. Robinson and McCoy and the Finance people and finish the job once and for all.

I am not going to say what I said here eight years ago with regard to that body. Possibly it is perfectly irrelevant to say it now, but I think it was a mistake ever to have any board other than the type of board that we had under the 1924 Act; that is, a chairman from the Bench—we had a district justice—and two representatives of the pre-Truce I.R.A. We had two 1916 men—the late Mr. Duggan and myself were the ordinary members of the board. I suggested in 1936 to the then Minister, Deputy Aiken, that he should have the same type of board; that he should have two pre-Truce men, who had fought with him in the Civil War, taken his side in the Civil War, and I said that so far as we were concerned we would not oppose such an amendment if he brought it in to the Military Service Pensions Act. I said then, and I hold still, that putting representatives of the Department of Defence, Finance Branch, on that board could have no meaning except to prevent people getting pensions. That is their job. The business of any representative of the Department of Finance who goes on a board of that kind is to oppose every pension; if he does not try to cut down every pension he is falling down on his job.

Mr. Corish

That is his mentality.

Mr. Lynch

If he does not do that, he is falling down on his job. I do not know who are on the board. I know that one of the representatives of the Department of Defence, Finance Branch—the man who is now assistant secretary of the Department of Defence and who is a 1916 man—was excellent and probably a greater asset to the board and to the I.R.A. than their own representatives on the board. I believe, however, that from the start it would have been better if we had the same type of board as under the 1924 Act, when there were two Old I.R.A. men to decide whether or not a man was entitled to a pension. In my time we were, as a matter of fact, always unanimous. I do not recollect that there ever was a division of opinion between us in any case that came before us. I think the present system of dealing with these cases is wrong, but perhaps it is too late to deal with that aspect now. All that I ask is that the Minister will be fairly generous and take a broad view in referring cases back; not to be too much of a stickler so far as his demand for new evidence is concerned. Let the board deal with that. Send them back to the board and see whether, on reconsideration, and with an opportunity of putting their cases more lucidly, a different decision might not be reached.

Mr. Carter

I agree with most of the observations of Deputy Corish and Deputy Lynch. I have no kick coming so far as the board is concerned but, from meeting members of various brigades, I think there is something definitely wrong in other respects. I know the members of one little company in which there were 63 men, and some of these men gave as good service to the country as anyone could expect, yet there are only two out of the 63 getting pensions. That is why I say there must be something definitely wrong. I am not charging the Minister in that connection, but I am going to make an appeal to him on behalf of these men. Some of them are broken in health and it would only be fair to have their cases reopened. They may not all get a pension. They were advised by many people to go to their brigades and have forms filled up. I think the Minister on many occasions told them to do that, to reform their old brigades, to come together and to be as united as possible. That happened in some cases, but in other cases it did not happen, with the result that many men have gone down the hill, so to speak.

I have known men to come to Dublin—they walked nearly all the way— to appear before the board and when they came in front of the board they did not know what to say. They were excited and nervous. I think Deputy Lynch has hit it well. The members of the board included a representative of the Department of Finance and he was what might be termed a cross-examiner. That was bad for men who were getting old and who had young families and who were getting nervous from past trouble and the hard knocks that they received during the period of the Anglo-Irish War. These are the men who made this Parliament possible, who made this nation possible; these are the men we should lift our hats to every day we meet them, whether they have medals or whether they are getting pensions or not.

I know a man who was wounded. Actually, there were three of them wounded in an ambush, but this man was badly wounded. The doctor was not friendly, nor were a few other men, whom I will not mention—none of them was friendly. This particular man was hidden in a clamp of turf in the bog and he remained there tied up and bleeding until his poor old mother came to him at night and brought him home. Later he emigrated and he came back again to his home. He cannot raise his arms properly and yet this man has been turned down for a disability pension simply because he had not a doctor to certify that he was wounded on that particular occasion. I think that is going too far. I ask the Minister in all fairness to give this case his sympathetic consideration and allow this man, and other men in a similar position, to come forward. I know in some counties that has been already done.

In my constituency certain men have approached me. I suppose every Deputy has a similar experience. These men think that the T.D. can get a pension for them. I am sure there is no Deputy who has not been asked by somebody to approach the Minister or some person connected with the Department. I appeal to the Minister to give these men a chance—possibly it will be their last chance. Their cases should be reconsidered, particularly cases such as the one I have mentioned of this wounded man who has no document, but who was badly wounded in this ambush, as everybody in the district knows. He almost lost his life and at the present time he is almost a cripple. There are plenty of neighbours who saw him bleeding. I ask that that evidence should be accepted. There are plenty of doctors now who can verify the statement. The doctor who was there at the time was not friendly; he would have had the man hanged if he could; he was an enemy, who is probably in a very safe position to-day. I trust the Minister will give such cases as I have mentioned his very sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Stapleton

I agree with Deputy Anthony's suggestion. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the case of a Clonmel soldier who was live and a half years in the National Army. He contracted some form of disease, was discharged from the Army and sent to the hospital in Clonmel. From there he was transferred to a hospital in another part of the county. To my knowledge, that young man was kept for months without receiving medical attention. He is now receiving attention. I waited on the Minister's Department some time early this year. I wrote to his Department some time last year. The Department could not see their way to grant him any consideration in the way of a bonus, pension or gratuity. He has to wait until the emergency is over. That man is the son of highly respectable people in the town of Clonmel who have a big family to support without trying to maintain a disabled soldier who contracted this disease in the National Army. I would ask the Minister to see that his case is considered immediately.

Mr. Larkin

I think there is some confusion of thought in regard to this matter. We are mixing up two different things. There is the case of the men who fought to sustain their principles and to bring into being this Government. Theirs is a totally different case from the case of men who joined the Defence Forces of this country in the period after the Treaty. Men who join an organised army must, undoubtedly, do so under certain conditions and I think their case should be dealt with entirely through the Department. The Minister and his advisers on the Army Council should know the regulations and should carry them out with all honesty and with a due sense of responsibility and this House has power to correct any abuse and I hope they will use that power if necessary.

Reference has been made to members of the I.R.A. Incidentally, nobody ever speaks of the I.C.A. I am afraid there would not have been any I.R.A. if the I.C.A. had not gone into action. No reference is made to them and there is no suggestion that they were ever in existence. I have some knowledge of them and I know of many very hard cases in connection with the treatment of members of the I.C.A., apart from the I.R.A. The I.R.A. afterwards became the organisation that controlled all activities and the I.C.A. became submerged in the general mass. I have a case in mind of a colleague of mine in the first days of the organisation of the I.C.A. in Dublin—incidentally, the I.C.A. was not organised in Dublin originally; it was organised in Cork— this man lay in a hospital in the City of Dublin—the South Dublin Union— for nine years and not a soul ever went near him to give him comfort. One day I was going through the wards and came across him. I did not recognise him. I asked somebody what was the trouble with him. I was told that he had been lying there for years and that no relations or friends ever came near him. When I was told his name I said, "He is a member of the I.C.A." I asked if any records had been taken of his case and I was told that there was nobody interested in him. I filled up a form of application for him and, after two years, he got 5/- pension, which he enjoyed for 15 weeks. As soon as he got the pension he left the union and rented a room at 4/- a week. He had 1/- to live upon. He got a little food from his friends. In 15 weeks he died and there was nobody to bury him. I asked a man who had been very important in connection with the movement in the early days why he had been neglected. "Oh," he said, "he was a Protestant." That was the comment of a man who had fought alongside him.

It has been admitted here, by a man who had authority to speak, that it is possible that political differences may be responsible for some of these men not getting recognition for their services. If that is true, there is only one solution, that is, for this House to set up a committee, with the authority and approval of the Government, before which these cases can be verified, apart from any judicial proceedings or any Ministerial decisions. Any man who says that the men in Enniscorthy are not entitled to consideration does not know anything about what took place in 1914 and 1916. I was not in this country at the time. I was in another service, but I know of an application made under the 1924 Act. This person's claim has never got the slightest consideration, and it has not yet been indicated whether his case was turned down or whether his application has yet to be considered. In 1944 there are still men walking the streets who to my own knowledge were active units before I left this country and who were actively engaged afterwards, as I have been told by men who were on active service with them. These men's claims have never been recognised.

There was one man, who was one of the most active units, not only pre-Truce but until June, 1924, who died in Dublin from starvation. The Minister knows that man personally and knows that what I am saying is true. He died from starvation, although his case had been put before the board at least half-a-dozen times by his family. All his family were engaged with him and yet not one of them got any recognition. The officers who knew him would not verify his claim.

Why does not the Minister, who was an active unit himself, get some finality in regard to these cases? Why do we not get some definite step towards settling these cases, for the honour of the country? Some of the men received miserable pensions. I know of one man who gave up a British Army pension. He gave service before 1914 and was out until 1920 until the order to cease fire was given. He was Paddy Kavanagh, whose son was along with him and got wounded on more than one occasion. He was awarded a pension of 5/- and he lost a 17/6 pension from the British Army. He died almost on the borders of destitution.

Cases can be cited for a week and we have had them from men in different areas. Incidentally, Deputy Lynch forgot to mention Meath. Surely, the men in Meath were as justified as the men in Enniscorthy, Galway and Dublin. They were out just as quickly as the men in Dublin. If there is any man in the country who fought for the liberty of this country and the right for us to legislate, surely we should legislate for him first. Every other consideration should be waived and these men should get justice. They are not getting justice. Some of them have deep-rooted grievances. As far as records are concerned, we know how many men were on active service. We know that many men are getting pensions although there is some doubt as to whether they qualified for them or not, but nobody is going to quarrel with that. There are other men who have a legitimate claim who are living on home assistance or who, as has been pointed out here, are almost on the point of death from starvation. The picture has been painted so clearly that it must be true. Deputy Carter has referred to a man who was left in a bog having been injured in an engagement. The doctor in the immediate area was an enemy and refused to treat him or give any record on his behalf. Surely that is a case that only needs stating to be admitted and proved. I saw men in the United States when they landed. They arrived there injured, practically penniless, with no one to care for them. If such men came before any legitimate committee set up by this House they would get justice. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying so.

I would suggest that this problem be divided into two classes. Deal with the question of the men who never got a real measure of justice or recognition and then with the question of whether a man who gives service to the country in time of crisis and who develops any form of organic disease has a legitimate claim. We have undoubted cases of young men who passed a very rigid medical examination and who developed tubercular trouble, which could only have developed in the Army while they were under Army orders. If these men in the course of their duties develop this particular disease, through exposure and so on, surely nobody will deny that this Government has a responsibility towards them, not only to see that they get all the medical attention that can be given, but to see that they are not thrown back on their families to be maintained as men who are not able to maintain themselves.

The present position is disgraceful. In our boyhood days, we sang the old songs about the way the British Government treated Irish soldiers, but we are treating our men far worse now than ever the British Government did. I feel that the House would not hesitate for a moment to say that if a boy or a man offers his services to the country in time of crisis, in 1939, for instance, is in the service of his country for three or four years and develops any form of organic disease, he is our responsibility, that we ought to care for him and give him the best treatment and see that he is kept in comfort and not allowed to become a burden on his parents.

I suggest that the Minister should take the matter up in that way, dealing with the men who gave service in the revolution and with the men who have given active service in a duly constituted Army under this State. In my opinion, the only way to do it is through an army council, exercising its functions through the Minister and subject to correction by the House, so far as the first category is concerned, and in the case of the other men, through a committee of the House, of three or four men who know the history of the time we passed through, the years before 1914 and the years afterwards, when we were carrying on internecine warfare against each other up to, say, 1924. Men who were actively engaged on both sides should sit down together and deal with these cases as they ought to be dealt with, on a humanitarian basis.

Mr. Flanagan

On 15th December last, I had a question on the Order Paper asking for certain information in connection with military service pensions payable in my constituency. From the information which the Minister has forwarded to me, I find that, in the County of Leix, 753 men applied for pensions, out of whom only 29 secured awards, there being no claim that is receiving attention at the moment. Does the Minister or any member of the House believe that, during the troubled times in County Leix, there were only 29 men to come forward to fight for the freedom and independence of this country? I hold that there were far more and I cannot understand how only 29 out of 753 were picked out. Take the County of Offaly which I also represent. In that county, 1,384 men applied for pensions and I hold that each of these men was on active service, because if a man in those days were detailed for an ambush and the ambush did not take place, it was not his fault that his life was safe. Every man who held himself in readiness and was prepared to sacrifice his life at a moment's notice against the enemy was, I hold, on active service and I cannot understand how out of 1,384 applicants in the county, only 193 have been successful. There is only one case under consideration in that county at present.

There is the case which I brought to the Minister's notice some time ago in which, according to evidence submitted to me and to others who have more knowledge and are more familiar with the procedure than I, the applicant was definitely entitled to a pension. It was proven beyond yea or nay that he was on active service, but a certain individual refused to vouch for him. Deputy Fionan Lynch hit the nail on the head when he said that certain applicants were victimised on account of political differences. I can bring the applicant in this case, together with his record, before the Minister and prove that that individual in my county has definitely been victimised for political reasons. There is also the case of the mother of one of the greatest of Irishmen this country ever produced, who was executed some years ago. His name will go down in the history of this country, but the mother of that man is in receipt of nothing more than 5/- per week on which to live to-day. That woman is facing the prospect of the South Dublin Union, but for assistance which she receives from friends. That is a very unfair way in which to treat the mother of any gallant soldier who came out in the dark days and gave his heart's blood for the freedom which we in Southern Ireland enjoy to-day.

In a question which I had on the Order Paper today, I asked the Minister if he would refund the expenses incurred in travelling to the city for interviews by the Pensions Board to all Old I.R.A. men who applied for pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, and who were not successful. Deputy Carter a few moments ago told us that several applicants from his own battalion in his constituency walked to the city for their interviews. The majority of these people who applied for pensions were hard-working, honest labouring men and many of them were small farmers. We had not got the rancher, the capitalist, the financier or the Jew in the Old I.R.A. We had the plain, poor, honest people.

Mr. Larkin

Yes, you had. The first man to die in Dublin was a Jew. The first man shot in Dublin was a Jew.

Mr. Flanagan

From my experience of some Jews, they have been opposed to everything national.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise.

Mr. Flanagan

I know it does not arise.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should act accordingly.

Mr. Flanagan

The point I am putting to the Minister now is that these people who apply for pensions and have to travel long distances— some from as far away as Cork and Kerry, the Midlands, Donegal and other counties far from the city— should get the travelling expenses which they incur, if the Pensions Board is not satisfied that they are entitled to pensions. It is not very much to ask and I should be very glad if the Minister would say that he is prepared to go into the matter and give it consideration.

I think the only Deputy who spoke on how we should arrive at some satisfactory conclusion to this question was my friend, Deputy Larkin, who suggested that a committee of three or four members of the House should be set up for the purpose of investigating these claims. I strongly support that suggestion and recommend that a select committee of the House be appointed to investigate these claims and to make recommendations to the proper authorities. I would strongly appeal to the Minister and to those in authority to reopen the cases of the men in the Midlands. I represent a constituency similar to that which Deputy Carter of the Government Party represents—the constituency of Laoighis-Offaly. I have quoted figures for my own County of Laoighis where only 29 men got any recognition from this State out of 753 applicants. I have seen evidence and I have received communications about 36 applicants from the village of Clogher and, in my opinion, these men were definitely engaged in active service during those days. Quite a number of applications from that part of the county have been turned down. I would be glad if the Minister could see his way to have these cases reopened in justice to these people who were prepared, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives when the call came.

Sir John Esmonde

May I add my voice to what has been said by two Wexford Deputies with regard to the cases of the Enniscorthy men? The Minister must be aware, having regard to the persistency with which their claim has been put forward on numerous occasions, that there is something in it. The question has been raised on the adjournment on one occasion by Deputy Corish and it has been raised from time to time also by other representatives. A number of these men have approached me individually and I have been also approached officially by an organisation in which they have banded themselves together for the purpose of enforcing their claim. I have had many of their statements before me and, if I might venture to give my opinion for what it is worth, I think, if their statements are borne out, they would bring them within the terms of the Act. It is not a question of verification, because what they did and how they conformed to the terms of the Act are well known in Enniscorthy and in County Wexford. I cannot understand under what circumstances they were turned down. The Minister must realise that there is some genuine grievance there, otherwise he would not be so persistently urged as he has been to reconsider their cases. I ask him to take special note of these cases and have them thoroughly investigated and all possible relief granted. I think that should be done in all justice and equity. From what I can see from the statements before me, if they can be borne out, these men have a just claim. In some cases I think it would only have to be stated, so clear does their claim seem to be. I am sure the Minister will realise, the demand is so general and so persistent, that this group of cases requires separate and special investigation.

Mr. Halliden

I think it is regrettable that so many men have been discharged from the Army through ill-health and that they should have no apparent means of subsistence or maintenance. I should like to know from the Minister if these men are insured against ill-health. Are they insured under the National Health Insurance Scheme or any other scheme and, if not, why not?

Mr. M. Morrissey

I take the opportunity of calling attention to what I believe to be a great injustice that is being done to a number of our Old I.R.A. men under the Military Service Pensions Act. On a few occasions I have raised this matter on the Minister's Estimate. I do not wish to make a case for Old I.R.A. men who have not a case to make for themselves. I am speaking from my own personal experience in Waterford and I am sure other Deputies have spoken from their experience in other constituencies. Knowing the service of practically all the men in the Waterford Brigade area I am satisfied that an injustice is being done by the present administration of the Military Service Pensions Act. I was sorry that some provision was not made in the amending Bill to deal with such cases. I am referring to the cases of men who had genuine active service. I could give a number of instances, but I know one man in particular in the Waterford Brigade area who took part in gun running and who was responsible for having cargoes of arms imported into this country and who spent weeks at sea in connection with that work. It is appalling that men such as he, who were engaged in other activities as well, do not come under the present Military Service Pensions Act. As well as that, men have been refused pensions who had the same service and even, in some instances, better service than men who have been granted pensions. These men took part in the same activities and also took part in other activities which the men who got pensions did not take part in.

I have nothing to say to the men who got pensions, but I certainly hold that an injustice is being done to a small percentage of the Old I.R.A. men. A large number of them, I am certain, are aware that they will not qualify, but there are men who genuinely believe that an injustice has been done to them. Their officers are aware that an injustice has been done to them and the people in the brigade area are also aware of it. I do not think it is necessary to amend the 1934 Act. I was hoping that the Minister would instruct the board to give a broader definition to active service so as to include the genuine cases which have been turned down. I think the board and the Minister have taken advice from the brigade advisory committee and the verifying officers. I am sure these committees set up to deal with the cases and to verify them before they were sent before the board are composed of men who knew the service of the individual applicants and I am certain that they are not likely to trump up a case for any man who had not a genuine case. I suggest to the Minister that these committees throughout the country should be asked to compile a list of cases in which, in their opinion, an injustice has been done. If that were done and a small number of outstanding cases discussed with the board and the verifying officers or a committee, I think that these men would get the justice which they deserve. I am not making a case for men who have not the necessary service, but for men who had the necessary service. I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to this matter and, if necessary, to have amending legislation brought in.

Mr. Traynor

I should like to correct some information I gave to Deputy Roddy at the beginning of the debate. I think I mentioned a full year's salary: it should have been only a half-year's salary.

In the cases mentioned by Deputies Cosgrave and Hogan, I must admit that there was a certain amount of unnecessary delay and I have taken that matter up. I should say, however, that much of the delay which is occasioned by reason of the methods by which they have to examine the cases of soldiers discharged from service is due, to a very large extent, to a fear the officials have of something to which Deputy Larkin referred when he said that this House is here to correct not only the Minister but his advisers. Men who have to deal with cases of this kind will, no matter what I or Deputies may say, set out to see that the cases are dealt with only within the boundary of the regulations which prescribe their actions. It may be termed "red tape" or anything else Deputies might like to call it, but the fact remains that that is one of the causes of a lot of the undue delay. There is a Public Accounts Committee, before which the Accounting Officer of each Department has to appear, and the officers responsible to that Accounting Officer must necessarily make certain that, as far as they are concerned, everything is water-tight and fool-proof and that they cannot be brought to book for anything they may have done.

Deputy Esmonde mentioned the case of a soldier falling over an embankment and also the cases of soldiers falling out of lorries. In both of these cases, the soldier will be covered, if on duty. He would not be covered if, for instance, he were out on his own, rambling along and, coming to a railway, decided to try a tight-rope walking feat across the parapet of a bridge and, in doing so, fell off, or if he were in a lorry without being on service—in other words, if he were taking a ride in a lorry surreptitiously or in any other way he might decide when off duty.

Mr. Larkin

It is covered in common law, then.

Mr. Traynor

It will not be covered, anyhow, within the meaning of the Act. Many Deputies have spoken here in regard to the 1916 men in Enniscorthy. I have had the Enniscorthy case dealt with on at least two occasions. Deputy Corish has made representations from time to time in respect of those men and has raised it here on the Adjournment, so that I can only say that that particular case has been fully and completely examined. The original number, if I am not making a mistake, given by verifying officers responsible for the actions in respect to the Enniscorthy 1916 men, was something like 60. Again, if I am not making a mistake or exaggerating, that has been increased by almost 100 per cent. Everything it was possible to do was done. It is quite possible, of course, that there were numbers of people who were deeply sympathetic with the aspirations of the Volunteers in Enniscorthy and that they may have gone out and given valuable help in different ways; but unless they were members of the forces and can prove that, and unless they can prove that they were giving active service, it is quite impossible to bring them within the meaning of the Act, and there is nothing I can do to bring them within the Act. I want to be frank and candid about that. Neither can I bring in any other man who makes an application for a pension and fails to prove before the board that he is a person to whom the Act applies.

I disagree with Deputy Fionán Lynch in respect to the type of board that is sitting. We have sitting at the present moment, and we have always had sitting, at the head of that board a judge who, beyond the work which he was carrying out, had no interest, good, bad or indifferent, in any applicant. He was sitting there in his capacity of judge, dealing only with the evidence placed before him and with the case made. He had assisting him two representatives of the Old I.R.A., both of high standing as far as rank was concerned, and there was a representative of the Department of Finance and a representative of the Department of Defence, both civil servants looking after the interests of their particular Departments. The secretary to the board is an Old I.R.A. man, a civil servant. I deliberately selected that man to fill that particular post by reason of the fact that there was no man who had greater knowledge of the conditions which existed in respect to I.R.A. service than this particular individual. And, indeed, I thought that, at some time or other, some Deputy would draw the attention of the House to that fact. I made that appointment deliberately, with the intention of securing, as far as I could, a thorough and sympathetic examination of every individual claim which came before that board. In the last couple of years, I changed the representative of the Department of Defence and I placed on the board as my representative a man with a good national record, associated with the movement down through the years. I must admit that I thought I was loading the board in favour completely of the applicants and, in fact, against the Minister for Finance; but I did it because of continuous complaints, such as those I have been listening to here to-day. I did it so that I could rest assured that the best possible type of mind, from the applicants' point of view, would be working on such cases.

I mentioned a moment ago that I am not responsible for decisions—and I thank God that I am not—but I have done everything that is possible to see that the applicants would be dealt with fairly. If the applicant, then, cannot prove his case when he goes before the board, what does the House want me to do? I do not believe the House wants me to compel the board to give pensions. Even if that were so, I could not give pensions where evidence of the type of service required is not produced.

I think it was Deputy Byrne who raised the question of a 1916 man who has decorations but has not got a pension. He wanted an explanation of that. The only thing I can say in regard to that is that any man who claims he has 1916 service can apply for a medal without applying for a pension. In other words, if he satisfies the Referee, on the evidence which he is able to produce, that he is entitled to a medal, then the Referee will give it to him. I understand that a number of those people who have these decorations have not got a pension. They could at any time, I understand, apply for a pension. I feel that the people to whom Deputy Byrne has referred are not these particular people. The decoration which they may be wearing may not be an official one. It was issued, perhaps, by a board of old officers in the Dublin area as a commemoration of the 25th anniversary of Easter Week. It does not carry any official recognition beyond that of their colleagues. I want to tell Deputy Hilliard, in reply to his question, that illegitimacy is not recognised in the Act. In answer to Deputy Corish's question, as far as I am aware soldiers are not asked to sign a form such as he mentioned.

Mr. Corish

I was not the first to mention that. I said it would be an extraordinary thing if it were the case.

Mr. Larkin

It was Deputy O'Leary who mentioned it.

Mr. Traynor

I would be amazed if such a form was offered to any soldier. As regards soldiers developing disease in the Army, if it is found that the disease is attributable to service in the Army then he is entitled to a pension. Provision is made for him in the Bill passed here recently. That measure even covers the man's dependents, down even to distant relatives, if it can be shown that the man concerned was supporting them.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

If the man died as a result of disease or injury, would the money be paid to his dependents afterwards?

Mr. Traynor

Yes, provided it is proved that he was supporting the dependent wholly or partly. The Act takes in brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and so on.

Mr. Corish

What about the important point that was raised by Deputy Allen of providing proper treatment in the military hospitals for those men instead of sending them home?

Mr. Traynor

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to treat T.B. at the present time. As a matter of fact, we are having a small sanatorium built to receive patients awaiting their discharge from the Army. That is as far as we can go.

Mr. Corish

It is a step in the right direction, anyhow.

Mr. Traynor

As a matter of fact we are keeping men in the hospitals at the present time longer than we should before we discharge them. We are doing that mainly for the purpose of getting them into outside sanatoria.

Mr. Allen

But there is a liability on the State.

Mr. Traynor

The liability on the State is being met by the 1943 Act. If it can be proved that the disease is attributable to service, there is no question but that the State will meet its obligations.

Mr. Allen

What about treatment in sanatoria?

Mr. Traynor

We have not got the means at our disposal to provide sanatorium treatment for patients.

Mr. Corish

Does the same thing apply if the disease has been aggravated by military service?

Mr. Traynor

Yes.

Mr. Larkin

Why not take over a hospital for the treatment of these cases?

Mr. Traynor

It is a rather big question to tackle at this particular time. We are trying to deal with it through another Department which is helping us as far as it possibly can. I should mention, perhaps, that the whole question of establishing a sanatorium for the Army has been dealt with at very great length. We found that the numbers that were likely to be treated were so small that it would be uneconomic to do it. I forget what the estimated cost was, but it would be a colossal sum in relation to the number of patients to be treated. It was considered that it would be much better for the State to pay for their treatment in sanatoria outside.

Mr. O'Leary

Men in Enniscorthy have told me that they have to sign a form. Is the Minister not aware of that?

Mr. Traynor

I want to make it clear that any soldier who can prove that the disease he suffers from is attributable to service in the Army will come within the Act.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister, of course, sees that that is a very difficult thing to do.

Mr. Traynor

We have been discussing a very difficult subject the whole evening, that of giving pensions to men who apparently cannot prove their claim.

Mr. Corish

Deputy O'Leary says that there is a form to be filled. Does the Minister say that there is not?

Mr. Traynor

I said that I would be amazed to hear that there was such a form.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister, of course, is aware that in the case of a soldier leaving the Army, and suffering from disease, it is very difficult for him to prove that the disease is attributable to Army service.

Mr. Larkin

Should there not be some consideration for those men in view of the rigid medical examination to which they are subjected before they are enlisted?

Mr. Traynor

The position is that the medical examination cannot, in fact, be described as a rigid one. The X-ray examination that we would like to have carried out in all cases is carried out only in the case of commissioned officers because their numbers are small. It would not be possible at the present time to carry out an X-ray examination in the case of every man joining the Army although it would be highly desirable if we could do it. I hope that, at some time, we will be able to do it because then any disease that may be latent in an individual which is likely to be aggravated by the hard exercise which the men have to undergo in the course of their training, will be revealed.

Mr. Corish

That is the point. I take it that when the Minister speaks of an X-ray examination, the disease that he has in mind is T.B.?

Mr. Traynor

Yes.

Mr. Corish

I think it will be generally admitted that T.B. is a disease which would be aggravated by vigorous military exercises, by the wettings soldiers get and all the rest.

Mr. O'Leary

Is the Minister making the case that men are being discharged from the Army and that nothing is wrong with them?

Mr. Larkin

Some of them.

Mr. O'Leary

One man went into the Army A1 and he is now discharged, medically unfit. Did the Minister question the doctors?

Mr. Traynor

No. What I want to make clear is that medically unfit does not mean in every case T.B. A man will be medically unfit if he has so many corns on his toes or so many welts on his feet that he cannot march. That man will be discharged because we can do nothing for him; we cannot make him march any better than he has been able to march. However, I think we could leave that particular phase of the subject for the moment.

Deputy Linehan raised a question as to allowances for travelling to and from the board. Expenses are paid to applicants under the Army Pensions Act, but expenses are paid to witnesses only under the Military Service Pensions Act.

I think I have covered most of the points raised by Deputies in this debate. The only thing that I regret is that the word "injustice" has been bandied about to such a very large extent that, to my mind anyhow, it reflects on a body of men who, in my opinion, have been doing their duty honestly and fearlessly and as well as it could be done in the circumstances.

Before I close I want to refer to a statement made by Deputy Larkin. I think the Deputy was badly informed in regard to the particular man he mentioned. That individual, for reasons known only to himself—the Deputy probably knew the man and his temperament; if that is so, he will understand what I am going to say refused absolutely to apply for a pension. I do not know what his reasons were; he knew those best himself. But when he did apply, he was, I understand, in very low health and very bad circumstances. He was induced by some of his old colleagues to make the application. He did so, and in less than five weeks a pension was granted to that individual; in less than five weeks everything we could do and that the Pensions Board could do was done in order to expedite the payment of the pension to that individual.

Mr. Larkin

Will the Minister answer the question I put to him?

Mr. Traynor

I am telling the Deputy about a particular case.

Mr. Larkin

I knew his attitude, and the Minister knew it as well.

Mr. Traynor

If the Deputy had no better information with regard to the man he referred to than he had in the case first mentioned, then I will say, whoever has advised him has given him information that is not correct. The Deputy will find on examination that the application of the man he referred to was dealt with as fairly and as expeditiously as could possibly have been done the moment it was brought to the attention of the authorities. But you must remember that the individual refused, for reasons unknown to most of us, to apply for his pension until in the last months of his life.

Mr. Larkin

Will the Minister tell us the reason why men, who made applications under the 1924 and 1934 Acts, did not know whether or not they were determined?

Mr. Traynor

There is not a single case of an applicant for a pension that has not been dealt with. Every claim was disposed of. The delay at present is in dealing with appeals. I will say in respect of Deputy Lynch's queries that the Referee retired from the work he was doing, permanently, so to speak, when all these claims had been dealt with and the only cases left were really appeals. Unfortunately, the appeals are growing in number. Deputies must remember that there were 62,000 applications and of these applications 12,000 have been successful. If the remaining 50,000 applicants are going to apply again we can easily visualise this board going on for ever—that is what it would look like. I am not suggesting that the whole 50,000 applicants are going to apply, but the fact remains that there will be a very large number applying. In facilitating these appeals, I am doing what Deputies are asking me to do.

The board can see very little light while I am referring these cases back for review. Unless the evidence to be produced is evidence that was not available at a former hearing, unless it is new evidence, we shall have to put a clamp down and tell the applicants that their cases have ended. The reason why this thing is dragging along is not because there are any claims outstanding, but because appeals are coming in and it is the appeals that are outstanding.

Mr. Carter

Will the Minister give the same facilities to the Cumann na mBan?

Mr. Traynor

They are all in the same category.

Mr. Lynch

On a point of explanation. I think the Minister seems to have misunderstood something I said. I gathered from the Minister's statement that he seemed to think I cast some reflection on the Referee.

Mr. Traynor

No, I want to correct that impression. In the course of the debate here the word "injustice" was used very largely and the term "genuine case" was also used. I do not know how any member of the House can talk about a "genuine case". I do not know what is meant by a "genuine case". Only the board can decide what is a genuine case. When you use the words "injustice" and "genuine case" you can imply only one thing and that is that the board is not doing justice to the applicant and that a case, while it may be a genuine case, is not being dealt with fairly. I do not know whether Deputy Lynch used those words.

Mr. Lynch

I do not think I used either one or the other, but from what the Minister said it appeared that he thought I said something which cast a reflection on the judge acting as Referee. I was very far from meaning to do so, and if I said anything that had that meaning I would withdraw it most emphatically because there would be no foundation for it. I do not believe I made any such suggestion.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think the Deputy did.

Mr. Lynch

Nor did I suggest that the civil servants on the board did anything but carry out their duties. I did say that the representative of the Department of Finance is there to watch Finance interests, and that is correct. I did not refer to officials of the board at all. The Minister did refer to the secretary of the board, and I take this opportunity of joining with the Minister in paying a very high tribute to Mr. Cremin. I join with the Minister in paying the highest tribute to the secretary, who was anything but a political associate of mine in over 20 years; but, whether you were politically associated with him or not, it must be said that no one got anything but the greatest courtesy and help from him. He was certainly most helpful in advising Deputies or anyone else who sought his assistance; he helped them and showed them how to present a case. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying that tribute to Mr. Cremin.

Mr. Hogan

There is one question I should like to put to the Minister and he can give a categorical "yes" or "no". He will agree that all the difficulties centre around the definition of "active service". Military service is defined in the Act as active service of a particular kind, but active service is not defined and the Minister finds himself in a great deal of difficulty when he finds phrases such as "injustice", "genuine cases" and all that sort of thing being bandied about the Dáil. Is he prepared to bring in an amending Bill to the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, defining active service? After such a Bill was passed through the Dáil, nobody here could find fault with the definition of active service because it would have received the imprimatur of the Dáil and Seanad. The whole trouble in the country is that one man who says he had active service will get a pension, and another man who says he had active service will not get a pension. The whole difficulty revolves around the definition of active service, and if the Minister removed that difficulty he would remove all the difficulties experienced by himself, the board and the Referee.

Mr. Larkin

I should like to join with Deputy Hogan. Deputy Lynch made a statement that a superintendent of the Gárdaí and another man, a common worker, were on the same job. According to his statement, the superintendent of the Gárdaí got a pension and, at the time, he was connected with the awarding of the pensions. How does Deputy Lynch suggest that the man who did not get a pension is not being treated unjustly? Let us use terms as they ought to be used. Either none or both of these men are entitled to a pension. If one got it and the other did not there is injustice and that is the term that ought to be applied to it.

Mr. F. Lynch

The Deputy is reading into my remarks something that is not in them. In the first place, I do not know whether the chief superintendent concerned applied for a pension at all or not. I assume he did and it was granted. I did not use the word "injustice" as far as the board is concerned because I am satisfied—and I mentioned it when I was speaking— that a great deal of the fault was because the local brigade officers who were supposed to vouch for that man did not do their job. That is not the fault of the board.

Mr. Larkin

The Deputy is master of the English language as well as the Irish language. Is not that an injustice?

Mr. Traynor

I want to answer the point made by Deputy Hogan. The term "active service" was deliberately left in that negative state in order that the Referee and the board could give as wide an interpretation to it as possible. If it had been put in any other form, I would have been confined to that particular form and possibly a larger number would have been ruled out.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister sees where it has landed him now.

Mr. Traynor

Deputy Lynch has answered Deputy Larkin.

Mr. Larkin

He has not, Sir.

Mr. Traynor

He has, in this respect, that two individuals go before a board; they present their case; they are supported or left unsupported, as the case may be, by the verifying officer of the district. These people go there with the full knowledge of the facts on which the claim is being made and if they do not give the type of evidence that will convince the board, how can anyone suggest that the board is guilty of injustice?

Mr. Larkin

I am suggesting that the one man violated his conscience.

Mr. Traynor

The board can deal only with the evidence submitted to them. If the evidence is such that they can give a positive verdict they will do it. If the evidence is such that they must give a negative verdict, that is the decision they will have to adopt.

Mr. Larkin

Suppose a man went out to blow up a barrack or a ship and there was no verifying officer, what is the position then?

Mr. Traynor

The position then is that he would still have to prove to the satisfaction of the people who are dealing with the case that that was so. How else can you have it?

Mr. Halliden

Are members of the National Army covered by any insurance scheme?

Mr. Traynor

They are insured.

Vote put and agreed to.