asked the Minister for Defence if he will state the grounds for refusal of a military service pension under the 1934 Act to Mr. Thomas Franklin (late of Esmonde Street, Gorey, County Wexford), present c/o Stationmaster, Córas Iompair Éireann, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin (Ref. No. 24/SP/11404/11200), and if he will have this case considered as Mr. Franklin has submitted extra evidence for the Referee.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Refusal of Military Service Pensions.
An application under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, was submitted by Mr. Thomas Franklin and was referred to the Board of Assessors appointed under that Act. The board reported on the 16th February, 1926, that his service was not of a nature to qualify for a pension in respect of it.
Mr. Franklin also applied under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934. The Referee reported that he was not a person to whom that Act applied and, in the circumstances, I do not propose to take any further action in the matter.
asked the Minister for Defence if he will state the grounds for refusal of a military service pension under the 1934 Act to Mr. Thomas Doyle, 20 Griffith Avenue, Dublin, late of Enniscorthy (Ref. No. 34/SP/404); and if he is aware that this man has been in the movement from the beginning and has been in prison and on hunger strike; and if he will have his case reconsidered as Mr. Doyle has submitted evidence a second time and as men with similar service to him have been awarded pensions in Enniscorthy.
The application made by Mr. Thomas Doyle, 20 Griffith Avenue, Dublin, under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, was referred to the Referee who reported to me that on the evidence before him, Mr. Doyle is not a person to whom the Act applies. Before reaching this decision, the Referee fully considered evidence submitted by Mr. Doyle (both orally and in writing) and by verifying officers from his former brigade.
Mr. Doyle recently appealed to have his case referred back to the Referee for review. The evidence submitted was carefully considered but it was not of a nature to warrant the reopening of the case and, in the circumstances, I am not in a position to take any further action in the matter.
Is the Minister aware that men with the same certificates as Mr. Doyle have already been granted pensions and that Mr. Doyle is one of the men in Enniscorthy who went on hunger strike and took part right along in the movement? If the Act does not apply in his case, why does it apply in the case of men who were comrades of Mr. Doyle in the whole struggle? Mr. Doyle was sent before the Referee again after the debate in the Dáil and submitted additional evidence. Yet he is turned down as a person to whom the Act does not apply. There is a grievance all over the country amongst old I.R.A. men because people with similar certificates have got pensions and men who gave as good service have not got them.
I do not propose to go into any of the questions raised by the Deputy, but I want again to inform him that Mr. Doyle was examined both orally and in writing and the Referee fully considered the evidence given by the verifying officers. His case was also heard on appeal and, outside of that, I do not propose to take any further action.
I should like to ask the Minister if the evidence given by the verifying officers in this case was acted upon?
I am not in a position either to know what the evidence of the verifying officers was or whether it was acted upon.
Is the Minister prepared to give this man an oral hearing under the new Act?
No.