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.