Deputy MacEoin mentioned yesterday certain classes of applicants who would be penalised if the Bill was passed in its present form. I would like to add three cases to the number cited by the Deputy. They were brought to my notice this morning. In the case of these three men conditional orders were granted in December, 1943. Seven days were allowed for service of the required orders. Due to the fact that the Christmas holidays occurred at that time it was found impossible to get the orders served. As the State applied for an extension of time in other cases, it seemed superfluous to the solicitors acting for these men to make an application to the court for an extension of time. At any rate, the matter was allowed to lie dormant until the completion of the test cases in the Supreme Court. Subsequently, when an application was made to Judge Haugh for an extension of time he said it was doubtful whether he could grant it, and added that it would probably be safer to grant three new conditional orders, which he did. The State was given a month to show cause. The point is that these three men are now cut out by the operation of the section in the Bill which fixes the 1st February as the date on which the conditional orders must be completed. These three applicants are in precisely the same position as the others who succeeded in the test cases, and it would be too bad if they were to be deprived of the benefits of this measure owing to a technicality. There cannot be many such cases, and I would appeal to the Minister to introduce an amendment to the Bill in Committee or on Report to cover these three cases and any others that there may be of the same kind.
Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed).
It is extraordinary to find the number of Deputies who have now great sympathy for the Old I.R.A. and to see the resolutions that appear in the public Press voicing sympathy for the Old I.R.A. arising out of this Bill. I listened to a Deputy saying yesterday that the 1934 Pensions Act was introduced by this Government as a vote-catching measure. I would say to him and to the representatives of some public bodies that his speech and their actions are certainly of the vote-catching type. Their object appears to be to cause discontent amongst the Old I.R.A. People so engaged had neither sympathy nor respect for the Old I.R.A. in the past. I do not know that they have very much sympathy or respect for them even at the present time. There can be no doubt but that amending legislation is necessary to legalise the claims that have been met under the 1934 Pensions Act. That is necessary unless we want to victimise the 11,000 applicants who have been successful in getting awards. I am sure the last people in the world who would be anxious to see those men victimised would be their old comrades who, so far, have not been successful in pursuing their own claims. We are all glad to see that 11,000 applicants were successful.
I personally feel that there are still a small number of genuine Old I.R.A. men whose cases need attention. Like other Deputies who spoke last night, neither I, nor the brigade committee that I belong to, would think of making a case for a man who had not a genuine case. But there are cases in my brigade area, and I am sure in other brigade areas, too, that are worthy of consideration and of an award. It is disappointing that there is no provision in this Bill to cover such cases. I think I am safe in saying that the number of cases outstanding in my constituency would be 30 or 40. The members of the brigade committee there, and other public men, could certainly stand over all these cases, and say that the applicants are entitled to an award. The big difficulty in a number of these cases will be that the applicant will not have any additional evidence to submit. All the evidence has already been submitted. In some cases the fact that a man did not get a pension was due to this: he was not able to make as good a case as his comrade who got an award, although both had similar service. The successful man, perhaps, was better educated, and was more wide awake to the examiner's questions. I think it is unfair to have such men turned down, while their comrades, who had given exactly the same service, have been awarded pensions. I mention that as one reason why a lot of genuine cases have been turned down. I do not say that was the fault of the board. It was the fault of the applicant, perhaps, more than the board. I am making a case for men of that type, and there are a number of them throughout the country. I urge on the Minister that their cases are worthy of consideration. This Government has gone a long way to meet the claims of men who gave service to the country in the past.
Now that this amending Bill is before the House I suggest to the Government that they should insert an amendment in it, if necessary, to cover such cases as I have mentioned. I believe that the 1934 Act can be operated to include the men I have mentioned. If the Referee would consult, as he did in the past, a conference of the local brigade committee and the local verifying officers, I am certain a way out could be found to deal with the small number of cases left. In that connection, I refer to local brigade committees and local verifying officers which have given good service to the applicants and to the board and which have been fair to both parties.
There is another way, which was suggested by some Deputy yesterday, that is, to send an investigation officer into each brigade area. That may be an idea worth trying. It may be helpful to have the brigade committee assembled, with the ten or 20 men whom they think should be entitled to an award, and let the local verifying officers and their brigade officers have the cases dealt with on the spot.
There is one thing I am satisfied about: I do not want the standard of service reduced for the re-hearing, if the Minister considers re-hearing this small number of cases. I would go so far as to say that the standard which has applied to all allowances since 1934 should not be reduced but should continue to apply. I am certain that, if this small number of cases were examined thoroughly, it would be found that on that standard they would be entitled to some pension.
As I have mentioned, it is impossible to get additional evidence. If the Minister could see some way of re-hearing these cases, he would be creating goodwill amongst those men who fought for the country in most difficult times. They are not crying out for an award, as they should cry or as they might be expected to cry.
I want to make it very clear to the Minister that nobody in my brigade committee would stand over claimants who have no cases. In making the case here for this small number of men who, we believe, are entitled to some award, we hope the Minister will take this point seriously; and, if it is necessary to amend the Act to deal with it, I suggest the amending of the Act in that respect.
I have listened very carefully to all the speeches which have been delivered since this debate began and I can sincerely say that the speeches made from the Fianna Fáil Benches appear to be only a sort of half-hearted support for the Bill. Each speaker says, in the beginning, that it is a good Bill and, later on in his speech, he proceeds to disclose its defects. I suppose that is the right line to take and I welcome it from the Fianna Fáil Party for the first time for a long while in this House. Every Deputy who has been a member of this House since it was established—as I have been—agrees that the men and women who made possible the establishing of this Parliament are justified in seeking compensation, if they desire it, for their services and sacrifices. I believe that was the intention of the Dáil when the 1924 Act was passed. As the records for that time will show, I pointed out then that many hundreds and, perhaps, thousands—I was not sure of the number—were being deprived of pensions under the terms of the 1924 Act, which was then under consideration here. It was unfortunately made a condition in that Act that you could not qualify for a pension under it unless you had pre-Truce service plus service with the National Army at the time. That was certainly unfair.
I have heard many discussions about the nature and extent of the compensation to which these people were entitled. It was suggested in this House, in my hearing, during the discussion on the 1924 Act, that compensation should not be paid in the way of pensions to able-bodied young men but that, wherever possible—and it was possible at the time in many cases and it may be so, even yet, in some cases—the Government of the day should provide suitable employment for those men, who gave such valuable service to the nation, rather than that there should be a pension or a gratuity. Whether that was right or wrong, we now know that some of the people who served in pre-Truce days were fortunate enough to receive good jobs in the service of the State, plus pensions; some did not receive employment in the service of the State, but were lucky to get pensions under the 1924 or 1934 Acts; others—and a considerable number, as is proved by the speakers from the right-hand side of the House —who were considered to be entitled to some recognition, are still waiting for it, so far as the past Government and the present Government are concerned.
I have heard various figures given here during many discussions, both during the passage of the 1924 Act and 1934 Act, and on the Army Estimates when military service pensions figures were quoted. On one occasion, I heard the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald, state most emphatically—and he should have had reliable information at his disposal—that not more than 3,000 persons could be said to have given active service in pre-Truce days. I heard Deputy Donnellan last night quote General Collins as having said that the figure could be up to 15,000. I do not remember General Collins ever having given that figure, nor do I remember ever having seen the figure published. At any rate, we are in the position to-day that recognition by way of pension under the 1924 and 1934 Acts has been given to upwards of 16,000 persons. That is a fairly big figure.
There is another discrepancy which is, I think, unfair and which should be put right, if possible. There is a big difference between the scales of pension in the case of the 1924 Act and the scales in the case of the 1934 Act. The scales of pensions provided under the 1934 Act are much lower than those provided under the 1924 Act for men with the same service and rank. In addition to that, the people who got pensions under the 1934 Act had to suffer the loss of the payment of these pensions for a period of ten years. These are things which are worthy of note by a neutral, if I can be called a neutral, in matters of this kind. If it is possible under this Bill or some other Bill the pensions should be regularised so far as paying them on a standard basis is concerned.
This Bill is brought in, obviously and admittedly, by the Minister and fired at the members of the Dáil in a hurry to regularise the illegal action of the Government in allowing a civil servant to usurp judicial powers, to put right the action of that civil servant or other members of the Military Service Pensions Board or the Minister or the Government in paying out £2,561,000 of the people's money without proper authority. The Minister will not dispute that that is a fact. We are asked to regularise payments that have been made. That is the pressing point made by the Minister and some speakers who supported him from the Fianna Fáil Benches. The Supreme Court found the Government guilty of ignoring the terms of the 1934 Act and also ignoring the wishes and intentions of the majority of the members of the House, if not all the members of the House, who were responsible for the passing of that Act.
A good deal of this confusion and chaos and the costs associated with the bringing of this large number of cases from one court to another until they came to the Supreme Court could have been avoided if the powers given to the Comptroller and Auditor-General under the 1924 Act had been retained. I wonder how many Deputies, particularly Deputies sitting on the Fianna Fáil Benches, are aware of what happened in connection with that aspect of the payment of military service pensions. Under the 1924 Act, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is the guardian of the taxpayers, whose job it is to see that the wishes of this House are properly carried out in regard to the spending of the people's money, had full power to come in and check the payments, to examine the application forms and to satisfy himself that the pensions authorised by the board were properly payable and in that way to check the activities of the Military Service Pensions Board, the Referee and the Minister and the Government responsible to this House. In the early part of 1927 the Comptroller and Auditor-General made a complaint to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I was then a member and subsequently chairman, that the Minister for Defence of the day and the Army finance officer, acting on the instructions of the Minister for Defence and the Government, declined to produce to him what he was entitled to have produced to him under the law, namely, the papers in connection with the payment of military service pensions. That matter was brought before the Public Accounts Committee and, after long argument, the majority of the members of the committee, of which I was at that time chairman, supported the claim of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
The next thing that happened was that I was sent for by the Minister for Finance of the day and asked if I and the majority of the Public Accounts Committee fully realised what that meant. We informed him that we were satisfied, after listening to the arguments on both sides, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General was correct in demanding the production of the papers up to that period in connection with the pensions which had been sanctioned by the Minister on the advice of the Military Service Pensions Board of the day. In order to deprive the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the powers that he then possessed of having access to and examining all these files associated with every pension claim, the Minister for Finance of the day brought in a Bill, in spite of the recommendation of the majority of the Public Accounts Committee, and steam-rolled it through the House depriving the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the powers given to him originally under the 1924 Act. I say that if the Comptroller and Auditor-General had retained, under the 1924 Act and the 1934 Act, the powers given to him at that time, there would be no necessity for this Bill to be produced in this House, no necessity for the claimants to go before the courts and no necessity for all this confusion and chaos.
Why?
Because the Comptroller and Auditor-General, if he had retained these powers, would have the right to say whether the procedure adopted by the Military Service Pensions Board was correct or incorrect and, if it were incorrect, it would be his duty to bring it to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee and subsequently before the Minister concerned and the Dáil to whom he was responsible. If the procedure was incorrect, it would have been rectified at that time and it would have saved all this confusion and costly litigation that is responsible for the production of this Bill.
It is interesting to note, and I am sure Deputy Allen will be interested to know, that it was argued by the Government and the Minister concerned particularly, that it would be unfair to produce to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and perhaps to other persons in his office and civil servants in general, any of the application forms. I had a certain amount of sympathy with that kind of argument at the time. But I would remind Deputy MacEoin of what occurred at that time, during the period of office of his Government, especially as yesterday evening he suggested that certain types of claims, instead of being disposed of by the Military Service Pensions Board and the Referee, should be sent to the courts for public examination. It would have been far better at the time to submit these to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who was an officer of this House, rather than to suggest now, many years afterwards, that they should be submitted to a public court for examination. I can understand that it would not be fair to disclose to the public certain information contained in application forms from certain types of claimant. I will leave it at that.
I have heard, of course, a great many complaints about unfair treatment meted out to applicants for military service pensions and the same kind of complaints have been cited in this House as having arisen under the 1934 Act as arose under the 1924 Act. I do not know when we will have heard the last of these complaints, real or imaginary. A great many of them, I admit, are more imaginary than real. But there is this type of complaint which I have heard and which certainly makes a certain impression on my mind. I have heard this kind of complaint made generally in the country, in my constituency at any rate, that the overwhelming majority of the cases under the 1924 and the 1934 Acts sanctioned by the two Governments concerned related almost entirely to the active political supporters of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when in power and the Fianna Fáil Government in power to-day. Deputy Allen may shake his head at that but, if he travels around his own constituency, and I believe he does, as he is very active in his constituency, he will certainly hear that kind of complaint, whether true or not.
I never heard it.
I will say that, to my own knowledge, those in my constituency who took a neutral line in the Civil War certainly got a raw deal. There are many cases on record which can prove that. If I had my way when the 1934 Bill was going through I would not give any pension to those who fought their fellow-Irishmen during the Civil War. I always advocated and supported a pension, compensation, gratuity, or suitable position in the State service for those who rendered pre-Truce service; but we all know that about ten times as many men fought their own fellow-countrymen as fought the foreigners when they were in this country. I do not think it is any credit to anybody to say he is entitled to recognition from the citizens of this State for having fought his own fellow-countrymen. He certainly is entitled to get a pension and, if necessary, a position in the service of the State, for having made it possible for us to meet here in a free Parliament.
That is rather wide of this Bill.
Deputy Allen, though a very good humoured Deputy, is very provocative.
Why do you amuse?
Even if I amuse somebody, I am doing no harm in that. Deputy Donnellan was slightly unfair last night when he charged the Taoiseach and the Government of having failed to carry out the promises which they made to their political supporters previous to the 1932 General Election. Deputy Donnellan is not conversant with the background of the reversal of any promises that may have been made in that direction. I remember quite distinctly that in the 1932 General Election, in my own area, Government Party candidates certainly gave assurances to those who were concerned that if they were returned as a Government at that election one of the first things they would do was to repeal the 1924 Pensions Act. In fairness to the Taoiseach and his Government—and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures certainly cannot contradict this—an attempt was made to repeal that Act shortly after the Fianna Fáil Government was put into office in 1932. The members of this group—and I was the Whip of the Party at the time—were approached shortly after the election of the Government in 1932 and informed that it was the early intention of the Government to repeal the Act of 1924. The Chief Whip of the Government Party at that time—who is the Minister for Justice to-day—is the gentleman who conveyed that information to me. I appealed to him to give me sufficient time to call my colleagues together to find out—as I had some doubt—whether the members of this small group, who at that time held the balance of power, were prepared to shoulder that responsibility.
Our Party met and I was instructed to convey to the Chief Whip of the Government Party the decision of our group that under no circumstances could we take the responsibility of voting for the repeal of any pension Act— military service, old age, or any other pension Act—that it would be quite contrary to the procedure of any democratic parliament to do so. I understand the Government summoned their colleagues from different parts of the country, they summoned the members of the National Executive of the Fianna Fáil Party and, after considering the matter from every angle, apparently, they decided that instead of repealing the Act of 1924 they would bring in what is now referred to as the Act of 1934. I agree that in the meantime there was a general election in which the Government got a clear majority and, presumably, they were quite entitled to use that majority for the purpose of bringing in the 1934 Bill, which was supported by the members of this Party. But it is not quite right that Deputy Donnellan should put all the blame on the Fianna Fáil Party for reversing their pension promises of 1932. If we had at that time supported the Government in their attempt to repeal the Act of 1924, it would have been repealed. I do not know what the consequences would have been. There would have been no Act of 1934 and no discussion of that Act or of the amending Bill to-day.
We heard a good deal from various speakers, and from the Minister in particular—and I pay particular attention to what the Minister says in this matter—about the promises that are now being made to deal with outstanding appeals. We have had different versions from members on the Fianna Fáil Benches as to the number of genuine appeals still outstanding. Is it not a fact, Mr. Minister, that when speaking on the last Estimate for the payment of military service pensions, you gave——
The Deputy will please address the Chair.
I am sorry. Is it not a fact that the Minister gave the members of this House to understand that all outstanding appeals would be cleared up in the present financial year? Now, we hear that there are hundreds—some people say a few thousand—appeals to be reheard or dealt with before the end of the present year. If this Bill had not come before this House, for the reasons which the Minister knows better than I, the House would not have heard about all these appeals and, I assume, we would be quite entitled to believe that the Minister's statement to the effect that all outstanding appeals would be cleared up in this financial year was a correct one.
That was substantially correct, and if the Deputy was listening to my statement yesterday evening, he would have heard me reiterating that.
I also heard from the back-bench members of the Fianna Fáil Party that it would be impossible— absolutely impossible—to dispose of all the appeals before the end of the present year, much less before the end of the present financial year—the 31st March.
Of course, we are talking now, I understand, about appeals lodged—is not that correct—not the cases that have been mentioned here?
I am talking about outstanding appeals.
There are appeals which have been lodged and upon which I made a statement. There are appeals which have not been lodged or which, if they were lodged, have been turned down. Deputies are making statements in regard to the numbers they think would end matters if they were cleared out. Is the Deputy referring to statements of that kind or to the statement in regard to appeals actually lodged?
I must admit that I am rather confused as to what the Minister means by appeals. I am referring to existing outstanding appeals. I do not know the dates the Minister has in mind. I am talking about genuine appeals still outstanding and there is certainly a big difference of opinion between the speakers on both sides of the House as to the number of genuine appeals that are outstanding, but it is true—I assume the Minister will not deny it—that he gave the House the impression, when speaking on the last pension Estimates, that all appeals outstanding—appeals of that particular period, at any rate—would be cleared up inside the present financial year. I stated that cases have come to my notice where appeals had been lodged and where, in my opinion, proper consideration has not been given to them. I quote two cases of persons who adopted a neutral attitude during the Civil War period and who were not associated with either of the two big political Parties. I quote one referring to the constituency that Deputy Allen has the honour to represent. A friend of mine who is well known in the ranks of the Gaelic Athletic Association, who was involved in the Rising of 1916 in Enniscorthy and who is fairly well known, I think, to Deputy Allen, made application for a military service pension. His application was certified by two men who were sentenced to death in 1916 and who are well known, by name at any rate, to every member of this House. The persons concerned certified other applicants who got pensions. He was brought before the Military Service Pensions Board, or the Referee. When he went before the Referee he was handed a Bible and took the oath. Then he was shown into another branch of that particular section of the Department of Defence and stated his case. He has not received any military service pension, notwithstanding the fact that his case was certified by those two men and notwithstanding the fact that his own certificate has been accepted by the same board in respect of other applicants who received pensions. That is a rather peculiar case.
There is another case in my own constituency which I brought to the notice of the Minister when an appeal was sent in on at least two occasions. This man's application for pension was turned down. He was certified, as far as I know, by the local brigade officer. He was personally associated with the chief brigade officer for the area and stated that he was engaged in certain active service of a kind which made him and his friends believe that he was entitled to press his claim for pension. His claim was turned down. He appealed and gave the names of two very high State officers who were prepared to certify, if called upon, that he was involved in certain engagements of a major nature. One of these officers was a superintendent in the Guards and the other was a colonel in the Army. Their names were supplied to the secretary of the Pensions Board and, I believe, to the Minister. I am informed that neither of these two officers was called upon to say anything in connection with the appeal made by that deserving applicant. I do not understand that procedure. If a genuine applicant whose case is certified by the brigade officer, gives the names of two State officers who were Old I.R.A. men, and who hold high rank in the service of the State, I think the least that might be done, in fairness to the applicant, is to call upon them to say whether or not such an applicant was involved in such activities.
I will produce from the records of the House the reply given by the Minister in that case and it will prove that the officers were not called upon to support the applicant. I know that one could go on quoting many cases here. Quite sincerely, with the limited knowledge at his disposal, a Deputy could go on quoting the grievances of innumerable applicants for military pensions. If I were to engage in that kind of activity in this discussion, all I could rely upon would be the verbal statements of the people who made complaints to me, and I do not think that would be evidence. I informed the people who came to me that I was not in a position to say whether they were right or wrong. I would, however, like to be in a position, before this whole business is disposed of, to be able to say that every genuine applicant got a fair chance of putting his case before the person appointed by this House to deal with applications.
When did the Government or the Minister first find out that the procedure adopted by the Referee was wrong? Surely to goodness the Minister has enough experience to know that there was something radically wrong before 1942, 1943 or 1944? He certainly knew there was something wrong in 1942, because he was aware that cases were going to the courts. Did the Attorney-General at that time advise the Government as to the soundness or otherwise of the first case taken to the court? I understand that two of the three judges who dealt with some of these cases in the High Court at a particular period certified that the procedure adopted by the Referee was correct. It is strange that the two judges occupied the position of Attorney-General under this Government during successive periods.
The Deputy is on rather dangerous ground if he proceeds to attack the judiciary.
What I wanted to convey is——
I am only indicating what might occur to the average man reading the Deputy's speech—that it is rather dangerous ground.
I would like the Minister to say if, at any time previous to the decision of the Supreme Court, he or other members of the Government were in doubt with regard to the procedure adopted in dealing with these cases. There must have been doubt created in the minds of the Minister, his legal advisers and other members of the Government in 1942. At the time the first case came before the courts surely there was some ground for having doubt as to whether the procedure was right or wrong. If the Minister had his doubts in 1942, 1943 or 1944, or at any time previous to the decision of the Supreme Court, why did he not come to the House and make a confession that the procedure was wrong and ask for the necessary authority to regularise the illegalities that we now know were going on for a long period and that resulted in the Referees—there were two or three involved—handing over the judicial powers conferred on them by the House to a civil servant not of senior rank? I object to judicial powers being handed over to a civil servant without the authority of the House. In none of this legislation was it the intention of the House to give judicial powers to people other than the members of the judiciary. Judicial powers were given to a judge, but it was not the intention to allow that judge to delegate his powers to a civil servant not of senior rank.
Deputy Davin dealt with the defects of the Act to remedy which this Bill has been brought in. I have been here for 18 years and I never saw an Act that somebody could not find a defect in. I am voting for this Bill because I am not prepared to throw 11,000 Old I.R.A. men, who were given pensions under the 1934 Act, into the wilderness again. It took from 1934 to the present day to get those pensions through and if we are now going to throw those men out and make them come along again, most of them will not need a pension from anybody because by the time a new pension will be granted they will be dead and buried. That is why I am voting for the Bill.
It is all very well to make a comparison between the 1924 Act and the 1934 Act. The 1924 Act was enacted immediately after the Civil War. You had the circumstances of only three or four years to be considered. The 1934 Act came along ten years later, when men had to cast their minds back almost 20 years in order to recall what occurred at various periods—what particular engagement occurred on such a night, and so on. It was a very difficult job to recall exactly what happened and to remember every individual who was in a particular engagement. Judging by the results, the Pensions Board did fairly well, considering the difficulties they had to face and the different versions they received of particular activities. I do not know how anyone could expect the Referee to hear all the cases. I wonder how many cases an ordinary judge would get through in court in a year? Does anyone imagine that a Minister can read all the documents he gets in connection with matters relating to the administration of his Department? You must look those things in the face. It would be physically impossible for any judge to get through 11,000 cases in that period.
No doubt there are cases of injustice, cases of wrong decisions by the board and by the Referee. You had there a board dealing mainly with ordinary country people, many of whom were on their first trip to Dublin; they were not aware of all the lawyers' twists and they could not watch out for the technicalities on which they might be picked up. I know of three men who had better service than their comrades who got pensions. These men happened to be captured during the first week of July, 1921. They were released on the 9th July, 1921. They were asked by the board what they did afterwards. They said they were keeping out of the way. They thought the board meant whether they were in any other ambush between the 9th July and the critical period, and the board ruled them out because they were not on active service on the day of the Truce. I think too much notice has been taken of technicalities of that type. There are certainly numbers of men who, in my opinion, have been unjustly treated and it is our duty, apart from what decision is come to anywhere, to see that they get justice. The verifying officer who came up in connection with these cases was not allowed to claim anything for a man which that man himself did not claim and if an applicant, becoming flustered in giving his evidence, forgot a particular activity, the verifying officer could not claim that activity for him afterwards.
These are the matters which have largely led to the dissatisfaction which exists. Of the men who got pensions under the 1924 Act, 465 have died, and of the men who got pensions under the 1934 Act, 736 have died. The saving to the State amounted to £21,900 and £19,000 in each case, a total of £40,945 saved because pensioners died. The number of cases of men who are entitled to pensions outstanding is not so great. I do not take any notice about what Michael Collins or anybody else said about the number of men who were active during the Black and Tan and Civil War periods. We know ourselves the number of men active in our own battalion and brigade areas. We know what their activities were and I am not speaking of men who were on the run but men who were on active service.
I should say that there are outstanding roughly from 3,000 to 5,000 cases of men who are entitled to pensions, and it is our duty to see that they get them. It is all very well to talk about additional evidence. What additional evidence could be required in the cases of the three men I have quoted? These men proved their cases, but they were caught out on a technicality, which was unjust and unfair. They were men who did not deserve such treatment. It is all very well for Deputy Davin to cant as I have heard him cant here for the last 18 years when any matter arising out of the activities of men who fought in the Civil War and who did this, that and the other comes up for discussion. We should be spared that from a man who did not think it was his duty to do his part at any time.
That is wrong. I do not boast of it like you.
I did not hear anything about it.
I will give the Deputy names of certain people.
It does not arise in any case.
The Deputy should not introduce these references.
I am not introducing anything. I merely say that I hate to hear this kind of talk from men who did not consider it their duty to do anything.
I would not get a certificate from the R.I.C.
Personalities should not enter into the debate.
So far as the R.I.C. are concerned, I do not know what kind of certificate Deputy Davin might get if we probed deep enough. This Bill is necessary in order that the work of the Pensions Board for nine or ten years shall not be undone, in order that the 11,000 men who have got their service pensions will not be deprived of them and in order to avoid having to re-examine the whole position. On the other hand, I am faced with a particular position—a position which was not spoken of here to-day, yesterday or the day before, but a position which has been spoken of by practically every Deputy for years past—of injustice to men who were entitled to service pensions. I can assure the Minister that so far as our brigade committee is concerned, we stand over no wrong cases. We stand only over cases of men who we know had definite active service and are entitled to pensions. It is our duty, as the representatives of these people, to see that they get justice, and I suggest that now is a very appropriate time for the Minister, as he is introducing an amending Bill, to insert in it an amendment to enable these cases to be reopened and justice to be done.