Last night I concerned myself with showing that the charges that the Government was proceeding to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights or that the Government was asking the Dáil to do something which was unprecedented had not the slightest foundation. I pointed out that if it were true that we were doing something unconstitutional it would be impossible for us to make that effective and that inevitable anything we did in that way would be null and void. I tried to show that we were not, because this is retrospective legislation in a sense, doing something which was unprecedented and to prove that, I quoted certain Acts of this House which have been passed for the last 20 years. I mentioned first of all the Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy Act, 1926, the Copyright Preservation Act, 1929, and the Accidental Fires Act, 1943. I made passing mention of the Land Act, 1926, the Land Act, 1936, the Finance Act, 1929, and the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. That was a fair list but it was by no means, I feel certain, an exhaustive list, to show that in bringing in a measure of this sort we were not doing anything in principle which had not been done already.
To-day I hope that I can equally well dispose of the suggestions which were made from the opposite benches that this was a tricky measure; that we were cheating people out of their rights; that, as Deputy McGilligan said, we were behaving scandalously. Those are terms which no honest person, looking on and knowing what was being done, would stand by. Those are expressions which could be suggested only by bitter, political partisanship, expressions which could be suggested only by the desire to make capital out of the discontent or the dissatisfaction of the people who failed to qualify under the Act to get a military service pension. There is a large number of such people. The Deputy, who pretends to have such respect for the institutions of the State, who pretends to have such respect for our welfare and good order and quiet, shows his goodwill in that matter by trying to get those people to regard themselves as "a beaten-down, defeated, tricked and cheated body of men." I say that that speech convicts the person who made it, no matter how he may pretend to exhibit concern for the order and welfare of this State, of a very different intention, or at least of a recklessness in speech and of the consequences of his speech, a recklessness that could have come only from a narrow, political partisanship which threw consequences to the winds.
I say I hope to-day to show that this measure is a just measure; that there is no question of denying justice to anybody; that the procedure which has been adopted, and which we are trying to validate in this Bill, has been a just procedure; that anything which has happened is something that could have happened under any procedure; and I challenge the members of the House to devise a procedure which would be better calculated to give fair play and justice. We have been told that we should have proceeded as if this were a court of justice. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that it was the intention of the Legislature to have the proceedings conducted as if in a court of justice. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that—quite the contrary. Everybody knows that the procedure in a court of justice would be altogether unsuitable for the investigations that had to be conducted in this case. We had Deputy McGilligan here last night trying to suggest that this could all be done in open court, and trying to suggest that it was, in fact, done in an open manner under the 1924 Act. There was no truth in that. They did not proceed as if in open court. The procedure was in many instances the same sort of procedure that has been followed under the 1934 Act. They were so anxious about secrecy in the matter that they did not allow the documents to be seen by anybody except by the people who were made immediately responsible for examining them and carrying on the investigation. In 1930 they brought in an Act in the Dáil, and kept everybody, even the officer of this House, the Auditor-General, from having access to those papers, and even retrospectively, I think, prevented anybody from having access to those papers. Anybody who knows the circumstances knows that the procedure of the open court is not a procedure which would have been suitable for the examination that had to be carried on. It is suggested that we should have it now. I say it was never the intention of the House to have a procedure of that sort. I say even that in the Act itself, taking it as a whole, and taking the meaning which has been attached to the words by the Supreme Court—there is no question of challenging that decision; their word is the last word and is the law— there is no such suggestion. I say that, as far as the intentions of the Legislature were concerned, there is nothing in the Act to indicate that it was intended that those four men should sit and act with him as if they were a court—nothing whatever. I say that for ten long years it was never suggested that that was the intention.
It is very hard for us who were here at the time to recollect exactly what was our particular intention in that regard. Most of us perhaps took it that the general intention we had was set forth in those words "sit with". In no place is there an indication that the Referee should sit as a court. There is one phrase with reference to the advisory committee, but the duties of deciding were placed squarely on the shoulders of the Referee alone. The others were to be an advisory body to help him in the investigation which it was his duty to carry out. For over six and a half years they worked together. They worked together more or less as a body, consulting with each other about the cases that came along, until they had reached definite standards, standards as to the degree of service and the character of service which they would regard as qualifying service under the Act. During those long years, they got to know each other's standards, and worked together, and in order finally to expedite the work they divided into two parts.
Now, look back and see the constitution of the advisory committee as it was at the beginning. It was constituted in this way: two civil servants, who, naturally, would be chosen as experienced officers, who would have good knowledge of administrative work, who would know how the public interest is safeguarded in regard to finance and so on, and who would know what follows in an administrative way from Acts of Parliament, etc., and two I.R.A. officers of high standing. We had two of each kind. Why we chose two of each kind, and not one of each kind, I cannot say now. It was probably thought that there would be a better discussion if there were two of each kind. But after the two of each kind had sat together for 6½ years, they were divided up into one of each kind together. They sat in the same room, and if one pair—the pair in each case being an I.R.A. officer and a civil servant—were doubtful in any particular case, they would go over to their colleagues, who were sitting at a table nearby, and consult with them. That happened even after they were divided, and no case came before the Referee for his final consideration and his final judgment, on which he was to make a report, unless it had on it the signanature of the recommendation on the one hand of the pair, namely, an I.R.A. officer and a civil servant. The suggestion that these cases have not been fairly treated and carefully examined is a suggestion without any foundation whatsoever. The only thing that has happened is that the Supreme Court has said now, after the Act has been in operation for ten years and 60,000 cases have been considered under it, that the procedure adopted was not in accordance with the expressed words in the Act.
I say that the intention of Parliament was to have these cases fairly examined. The intention of Parliament clearly was not to have court proceedings. The Chief Justice himself in his judgment said it was clear from the Act that court procedure was not contemplated. The intention was to have the cases examined by an impartial Referee, with four members to advise him, so that he might get at the facts. I again say the procedure was a just one and we see no reason why it should be scrapped now because it was not technically correct. We think the procedure was sound and we think that if we were planning that Act to-day we would choose the same procedure if it had been put forward by anybody as the proper procedure. We think the procedure gave substantial justice. Of course, the Referee is only human and the advisers are only human, and their difficulties were similar to those experienced by everybody who has ever been an examiner and has had to examine candidates.
Those who have experience of examining candidates know full well that if, say, 40 per cent. is fixed as the standard for passing, and if the examinations are of a certain type with a large number of candidates who fall in or around the 40 per cent. mark, there is tremendous difficulty in drawing the dividing line and deciding who is under the standard and fails and who is above it and passes. We know that passing or failure in many examinations is a very important thing for the individuals concerned. Every examiner knows that, no matter how carefully he arranges his system of marking, he will find a number with 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 per cent. When he has to divide them and say: "You have 40 per cent. and pass; you have 39 or 38 per cent. and you fail," what does he do? If he is a conscientious examiner he knows full well that quite possibly his marking may not be so accurately scaled as to be able to distinguish between a mark one way or the other. I have had to do it myself on many occasions; I have had to re-examine with care those with 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 per cent., as I knew that my judgment and decision would have very important consequences for the people involved.
It is often very difficult to make sure that those to whom you have given 39 are under the standard, those to whom you have given 40 are up to it, and those to whom you have given 41 are over the standard. My experience has been in regard to subjects in which it was relatively easy—difficult, but still relatively easy—to decide; since certain marks could be given to parts of a question. Think, however, of questions like English Composition, where matters of style and personal taste may be affected. It is perfectly certain that, if you decided the figures on the 40 per cent. standard and then passed the papers to a colleague, those which you marked just above the 40 per cent. line may be marked below it by him. Where you have to draw a line, you know perfectly well that there is a very thin difference indeed between those just above the line and those just below it.
What has happened in this case is precisely the same as happens in all examinations of that type. It can be anticipated that it will happen under any scheme of investigation for pensions that you can set up. It was inevitable from the start that these difficulties would arise and it is not extraordinary that they have arisen. You have only human agency to rely on for the decision and so all you can expect is that the human agency will act fairly and justly, without bias and with reasonable care. One might say there should be scrupulous care, but scrupulous care can be carried to such an extent that it defeats its whole purpose and years and years could be exhausted in examination. We had 60,000 cases to be dealt with. I gave 300 days as the number of working days in a year. If you could do only one case per day—and I have spoken of a case which took three days, and which took a month afterwards before a decision could be made—it would take 200 years. Further, if each case occupied the same length of time as the one I have mentioned, three days, it would take 600 years to go through the whole lot.
We have a practical problem and there must be some limit to the scrupulousness with which it has to be faced. There can be one examination or two examinations, but there cannot be examination after examination indefinitely. Even if there were, it is possible you would have one put above the line at first and put below it afterwards. This was always a practical problem. In deciding this matter, the courts felt that they had not to consider any of these questions of public convenience or anything of that sort, or of practicability, or even of the intention of Parliament because of the fact that the words seemed unambiguous. Very well: we say that, the law being as it is, we cannot now scrap the work of ten long years—ten long years of reasonable care and effort in arriving at decisions. During that ten years a considerable amount of public money had to be spent on the mere question of administration, the mere question of investigation. Obviously, there must be an end to this sometime. I admit that it ought not to be regarded as ended if there are cases which could be segregated for re-examination. There again you get into difficulties. How are you to segregate these cases? In the case of an examiner, as I mentioned, he could take his table of marks and could see the students or candidates who got 39 per cent., those who got 40 per cent., and those who got 41 per cent. and he could examine these very carefully. He has no difficulty in making his selection. But how are we to make a selection of these cases? Who is to do it? Have we any Daniel who will come and tell the Minister or tell us how it is to be done? We have tried our hand at it and we have not been successful. So far we have simply found that if we open the door at all inevitably we open the door for everybody. If you restrict them at all you must restrict them according to some general principle.
There is a feeling amongst Deputies that the Minister for Defence could, quite arbitrarily, take these that he thinks are, or that are represented to him as being, people who were put below the line and who should have been above it, people who could be compared with others who are above it and say: "If so-and-so is above the line, these men should be above the line." Will you tell us how it is to be done? Personally, I have struggled with the problem and, for myself anyhow, I have not been able to find any satisfactory solution. I am told, and I believe it to be true, that in each of the 82 brigade areas there were, on an average, from ten to 20 cases—in some cases fewer and in some cases more—and that if, on an average, we could deal with, say, ten to 20 cases in each of the 82 brigade areas our problem would be solved; that where you have people above the line and people below the line and there is a difference of opinion as to who should be above the line and who should be below, that could be solved if we could get these cases reconsidered. Will somebody tell us by what machinery we could pick out these ten or 20 people in every brigade area whose cases should be reconsidered? If you can do it, you will be forcing an open door so far as this Government are concerned in having these cases dealt with. As I say, so far I have been unable to find out or to have suggested to me, though I have asked for suggestions from all Parties and I have got suggestions from a committee of Old I.R.A. men in my own Party, how the problem could be solved. To my mind, the solutions of the problem which have been given to me are not satisfactory. We cannot put it on the Minister to select these cases. We cannot put it on the brigade committees to select them. The committees will naturally say that that is not their business. The Minister has no way of doing it. I do not know that the Referee has a way of doing it.
We are told that it is by a too strict application of the rules and the law that this has occurred. In other words, we are asked to loosen up a bit. We are told not to be so careful of the law, to loosen up and to do this thing less strictly in accordance with the law and give the administration of the matter more elasticity. I do not see how we can do that. I do not see how the Minister can act except in accordance with the law. I do not see how the Referee can depart from the standards which have been set up. The Referee and the committee have examined these cases carefully. Remember, before the final decisions were given, the brigade committees were communicated with and given 28 days' notice of cases in which persons were held not to be qualified. Where they reported that there was further evidence and that they wished to be heard further, these cases were held up for further consideration. After the 28 days had expired and the result of the investigations had been notified, another 21 days were given during which objection to the decision might be offered. There was a re-examination in a large number of these cases. Finally, there was, in accordance with the Act, the provision that, if new evidence which was not previously available became, available, there could be an appeal.
I propose to deal now with the practical part of this problem. Up to the present, I have been trying to clear away misrepresentations of the problem and of the Government's attitude. Let us now face this problem and see who is going to solve it. Deputy Norton suggested that we should have a select committee of this House. This House can act as a select committee and have a try at it. We will have a Committee Stage on which amendments can be put down. Deputies can tell us how it is to be done by amendment of the Act, within or without the Act. How are we to get a selection without reopening the whole matter all over again and getting 60,000 cases re-examined? How are we to deal with the problem of picking out those ten or 20 people in each of the 82 brigade areas whom the people who know them feel should get pensions if other people have get them? Will Deputies tell us how to pick them out?
The Referee has gone through them and he has decided that they have no case, at least that they are not up to the standard that has been set, the standard on which he was working. How is he to do it again? He cannot pick these cases out by any process of going over them again. Will any Deputy or any Party in the Dáil tell us how these people are to be picked out without putting the responsibility of picking them on shoulders that cannot bear that responsibility? Are the brigade committees to be accepted? The brigade committees through the country have been very helpful in this matter and I should like, in passing, to pay a tribute to them. They have given a long period of devoted service in trying to help this Act to be put through. But is it fair to put upon them the responsibility of picking out ten or 20 people in each brigade area and forwarding them to the Minister? Will the Legislature accept the proposition that they should be entitled to do it, to send them up for re-examination? How can we fix the number? I told you it is not the same for every brigade area. In some cases there may be only one or two who would deserve, in justice, to be dealt with in that way. In another case there may be 40-50. If you set 50 for one area how will you cut it down to ten? By what process will you say if it is 50 in one it can only be ten in another? It is quite obvious that whatever the number is it must be for all the brigade areas, roughly the same. If it is 50 for one it must be 50 for each.
I say we have not been able to solve that problem. It is a problem that everybody would know would arise. Suppose you solve it, do you think that ends it? You have drawn a new line or, at least, you have placed people differently with respect to the line. You will then have new people saying that they were wrongly treated in not having been part of the 20, 30, 40, 50 who have been sent up. They will have a grievance.
The truth is that when you are dealing with a matter of this kind, and when it is clear that a large number of applicants do not come within the class for which the Act was intended, you are going to have dissatisfaction from everybody who thinks that he ought to be included and who is not included by those who are set up to judge the matter. You can only leave it to the judges in the long run. There is no way out of it, as far as I can see. There was the system of final appeals which were granted only when there was additional evidence not previously available. It is suggested that we knock that out. The moment you do that, what do you do? You open up the case for everybody again. Indeed, I think it has been suggested—and I am afraid myself—that if we are going to make any amendment in this at all it will involve a rehearing or a re-examination, not of any selected number, but of the whole lot over again. How long it would take I do not know. But, do you think, if the examination is a hurried one, if there is machinery set up to do it quickly, that in the end it is going to give final satisfaction? I do not think it will.
As I have said, we would be most anxious to get a solution, even though it would not end this trouble by any means. There is no way of ending it. We would be very glad to get a solution, if somebody can tell us how to cover these ten or 20 or 30 people in each of these brigade areas who, in common opinion in the area, should have got pensions, taking as the standard of comparison what other people who have got pensions have done.
Other people tell us "you should define what `active service' means; you should define it in an Act." The trouble here was that you defined your procedure too much, apparently, when you put in "sit with," because "sit with" has been interpreted as meaning to sit bodily and corporeally with. If you try to define "active service," considering the variety and types of active service that there were from 1919 during the period covered by this Act, I can tell you that you will have a still finer El Dorado for the lawyers than was presented to them by the court decision. The more you define procedure in a case like this in an Act of Parliament the more you make it possible for the lawyers to come to the ordinary courts and to try to get in the ordinary courts decisions on these matters for which the ordinary courts are not suited. As I say, that is the practical point. I, at any rate, for one, knew that that would occur.
A suggestion has been made here that the granting of pensions and the Pensions Act was a political artifice here to try to induce people to be on the side of the Government. There is no truth in it. It would be very short-sighted political policy that would suggest such a thing. The history of the Pensions Act, as far as we are concerned, is this: We came in, but before we came in there was considerable dissatisfaction about the pensions that had been granted under the 1924 Act. There were 21,000, I think, who had applied for pensions under the Act. Some 7,000 of these applications had been disposed of administratively without ever coming to the Board of Assessors. If we had done something like that we would hear some shouting, I think. I think 3,000 got pensions and the remainder did not get them. The task under the 1924 Act was relatively simple compared with the task that had to be undertaken under the 1934 Act. One of the conditions under the 1924 Act was that the person had to be a member of the National Army. They had their lists and their rosters, and so on —there was no such list that could be availed of in the case of the 1934 Act —but still there was dissatisfaction— wide dissatisfaction. There was dissatisfaction not merely amongst the supporters of the Government of that day but dissatisfaction amongst the people outside, generally, that these pensions were granted. There was a general feeling that those who had taken part in the War of Independence had gone in there for purely patriotic and quite unselfish motives and the suggestion was that it was quite wrong to have any monetary awards, or anything that could be said to be a monetary award, given for service of that sort. That was the general state of feeling and the intention on our part was not to have pensions. But were we to allow the position to continue of discrimination? Probably twice as many Old I.R.A. men had been against the Treaty as were for it. Were we to allow that discrimination to continue? How were we to level things and make them even and to end the discrimination? There were two ways of doing it. One was by repealing the 1924 Act and having no pensions at all. That could be said to be the general idea of policy that was in mind for evening things— nobody to have a pension because of service in the War of Independence. The other was to level up.
We came into office and I was a very short time in office when I was approached by a deputation of those who had got pensions under the 1924 Act. The case they put up to me was this: "You, as a Party, have publicly indicated that it was your intention to honour the commitments of the previous Government." That had occurred in connection with loans and other things of that sort. They said to me:—
"Are we to be the only body in the country, the only class, who are not to come under the general terms of agreeing to carry out the commitments of the previous Government? Are the banks to get their money; are those who have contributed in various ways to get it; are the officers in the Army who have been retained in the Army to have their posts, and are we, who got these pensions partly because we were going out of the Army, to be deprived of the pension?"
I felt that it would be an unjust and unfair thing for us if we were to honour the obligations of the State to the banks and to the others who had given money and otherwise helped the State at the time—to honour the commitments of the previous Government in regard to loans, and then to repeal, or dishonour, if you like, the commitments of the previous Government in regard to pensions. It would not be just or fair or right. Therefore, the idea of ruling all pensions out had to be put aside and the only other way was to bring in a Bill which would deal with the other sections of the I.R.A., to deal with them roughly on the same terms as the 1924 Act dealt with the others, on the terms on which the people who fought on the side of the Treaty were dealt with.
That is the origin of that Pensions Act. The intention was to do the same thing, but the task was infinitely a more difficult one. They were able, with their procedure, with all the advantages of being only a year or two after the event, with all the advantages of having lists, to deal with these cases on an average of 3,300 a year. If they could do them only at the rate of 1,000 a year, how long might it be anticipated until they could deal with 50,000 or 60,000 cases? Looking ahead at the time, it was difficult to know what number was likely to apply, but you could have made a rough guess on the assumption that there would be at least twice as many. It might not be quite accurate, but it could have been the assumption at the time that there would be twice as many Old I.R.A. men against the Treaty as in favour of it. You could have anticipated that if there were so many thousands in the one case you would have at least 40,000 in the other case. That would not be a bad rough guess—40,000.
As regards those who had been refused pensions under the 1924 Act, there was an even chance that half of them could apply again because, so far as I know, they were not excluded under the 1934 Act. You might have guessed about 50,000 and, looking ahead at that time, it is not difficult to estimate that if you could deal with 3,300 a year, it would take about 15 years before you could hope to go through the mass of applications presented under the 1934 Act. The procedure which had to be contemplated was a procedure which would have to cope with that work in a reasonable time—truly, an immense mass of work.
I say that has been done now and we are in this position, that we have to scrap it all unless we bring in a Bill like this. I say this Bill is necessary. It was suggested on the opposite benches that it is not necessary and that we should leave things as they are. I have no doubt the legal profession would be very glad to leave the position as it is. But it is not our business to provide an El Dorado for the legal profession at the expense of the taxpayer. These cases up to the present have cost something like £5,000. Every one of the 60,000 applicants can go to the courts at the State's expense and get the order of the Referee quashed, and he will have then, if he wants to avail of it, the right of being heard by the Referee and the advisory committee as if it was a court and he can have all the procedure of a court with all the delays that it would involve.
Is there any Deputy here who thinks that it is right to leave the situation like that? It has been said that we need not worry about the 11,000 who are getting pensions under the Act— who have been awarded pensions—and that they can go on receiving pensions and we can continue paying out the money to them. I wonder is that a just or a fair thing to do, the law being as it is? Have we not been told by the courts that the procedure under which they got these pensions was not in accordance with the law? Is the Minister for Finance to continue paying State money while the position is that this money is being paid out on awards which have been arrived at by a procedure which the courts have declared is not in accordance with the law? In other words, is the Minister to continue to act arbitrarily and practically in an unlawful manner?
I know the lawyers will tell me these pensions have not been voided. My answer is they have not been voided, but every one of them is voidable and we do not want to continue in the position in which we can be represented as paying out money on awards which have not been strictly based on the terms of the legislation passed by Parliament, nor do we want to be in a position in which we will pay out money on cases every one of which is voidable. We want to change that position. Even for the purpose of paying these moneys there is a necessity for this Bill. Deputy McGilligan says: "All right, bring in a Bill and we will all support you. Bring in a Bill legalising all these payments and we will all support you." That is very fine for those who are getting pensions, but what about the people who are not? What of the people about whom all this complaint is being made? Is that going to help them?
Deputy McGilligan's cure is to let them come up and it is estimated by some Deputy that there will be a small number. Everybody can have his opinion about the number, but we have to face the fact that any one of the 60,000 applicants can bring a case forward. Even those who have got pensions could bring a case up again and say: "I did not get the rank that should have been given me." I did not mention it so far, but I might have, that this question of rank is also a matter of tremendous difficulty. It is the same as the case that occurs with an examiner who has Pass and Honours. If he has 40 per cent. as the Pass mark he has difficulties, and if he has 70 per cent. as the Honours mark he again has difficulties. He has to examine with great care his 69 and 70 and 71 in the same way as he has to examine his 39, 40 and 41. If you have five standards in your percentages you will have to consider that in respect of every line you draw. You will have the same difficulty.
Are we to leave the position then that every applicant, whether he has or has not a pension, can go to the courts, get an order at the expense of the State, and compel a hearing of his case in the manner in which, it is held by the courts, is prescribed by the 1934 Act? I say it would be unreasonable and it would be wrong to leave the position like that. I say it is necessary to have a Bill like this in order to validate the awards that have been made in regard to pensions and to validate the whole procedure— unless it is all to be scrapped—that has been adopted since the investigation began.
This, I again want to stress, is a matter of procedure alone. No Deputy here and nobody outside has said that the procedure was one calculated to cause injustice. He may have quarrelled with the award, but he does not quarrel with the method, and he could not quarrel with it as a general method of trying to secure a fair investigation of these cases. But we are faced with the difficulty that there is a line above and below which are certain cases. The distance between the line and some of the cases above and below is not very great. You draw your line, and inevitably there are some cases close to it below and some close to it above, and there is no human agency which can provide absolutely for all the cases and say: "Yes, without a shadow of a doubt, those above it should be above it and those below it should be below it." We ought, however, to do our best, within our human limitations, to secure a solution.
I have been anxious for it, and I ask the different Parties and the different members to help us, but I say that the proposal that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading but should refer it to a special committee is no solution. We have been too long struggling and know a priori the difficulties. We know too well that there is an insoluble difficulty at a certain point, and we have no faith whatever that any coming together of members of the Parties here will provide a solution which, on the one hand, will be fair, and on the other, will command public respect. We must have public respect for this if we do not want it said that “the Government gave a pension to so-and-so and did not give it to somebody else.” The Government is not doing anything of the sort. The Government's responsibility began, in the main, when it had the Act passed and set up the machinery. Very limited powers are given to the Minister and I think it right that that should be so. We must have some system by which it will not be left to the arbitrary will of the Minister or of a brigade committee to choose. We must try to get some solution by which a system will be devised under which it can be done.
The only way that I can see is to let them all be re-examined, and how long will that take? When it is done, if it be done, is there any guarantee that that re-examination would not leave us in very much the same position as to-day? What guarantee have we that, if we have a re-examination of the six, ten or 20 cases in a brigade area, they will not find themselves on the wrong side again? Is there any guarantee that there would be greater satisfaction when the whole re-examination was through? I do not think there is. I think we have arrived at the time, or are very near it, when we must decide that, as human beings, with all the limitations of human nature, in relation to an extremely difficulty question, we have reached pretty well a final stage. We must face that some time and I think we ought to make up our minds to face it now. Certainly I would urge the Government to face it now, unless during this period in which this question will be under close examination in committee some Party or some individual is able to come as a Daniel amongst us, and give us a solution which will be fair and just.
I would welcome such a solution and the Government would welcome such a solution, but if that solution cannot be found, for goodness' sake let us not take refuse in the pretence that the Government is acting unfairly or unjustly and let us not say that we are tricking, cheating or kicking out those who did not get a pension, as Deputy O'Higgins has said. Let us have some decency anyhow in public life in relation to a matter of this kind. Everybody knows that there were very many more than 60,000 people who did very loyal work in different capacities in that fight for independence. We did not set out to reward or to give recognition to these services because we could not. The wider you go, the more difficult becomes your problem. If you have a small circle with a number of points within and without, a certain number of the points will be near the circumference inside and outside. Enlarge the circle and the number of points around the circumference will be still larger. The wider you go, the more dissatisfaction will you cause by your dividing line between those who will get recognition and those who will not.
The purpose of the 1924 Act was of a very restricted character. The headline was set by that Act and the purpose of the 1934 Act was to give pensions to those who approximated to individuals in an army on active service. It is not suggested, I think, that there were 60,000 people who would come within that category of soldiers on active service. The purpose was to deal only with a particular limited class. The community as a whole might object and might say: "In various ways we played parts which were just as important." The information conveyed by the man who tells a company column leader that he has seen troops in the district who are going to surround that column leader might be of more value than a number of other activities and might have saved the lives of a number of men. The ordinary person who comes and tells a leader that there is an enemy column in a vulnerable position and enables the leader to ambush them and destroy them might give much more valuable service than a private in the Army, but you cannot go into all these things. There were householders who, by keeping columns, practically beggared themselves, but we cannot deal with these, because, as I have said, if we try to give recognition to every family and every individual who played a noble part, a valuable part, in the fight for independence, we would have to cover a very large section of our population.
We did not do that; we narrowed it down in accordance with the general idea of giving pensions to those who approximated to soldiers. We did not define it and it took so long for those administering the system to come to their final agreement that only 1,000 cases were disposed of in the first year. They got through only 1,000 cases in the first year because they were then engaged in setting their standards. If there are a number of examiners in a public examination, they come together and try to devise standards, so that they will have some sort of uniformity. It took them a long, long time to come to agreement, to give an idea of what was that particular standard of service which would entitle people to come under the Act. All that could be said in regard to those who got pensions and those who have not is that the only thing that is being done in regard to their service is that a certain body of people which was set up to examine the cases examined them fairly and impartially. They have arrived at the conclusion that a certain number—11,000 odd—gave service which approximated to the service which would be rendered by a soldier on active service in an army and that the other services, no matter how valuable they may have been either absolutely in themselves or in the estimation of individuals or neighbours— and there is no suggestion whatever that many of them were not valuable: some of them were invaluable and that may have been so in the cases which I indicated here—did not come within the Act. It was not the intention of the Legislature to give pensions in those cases.
I have tried to deal with this question fairly and honestly as I see it. I ask other Deputies to face squarely up to the problem and to approach it in the same way. I have had to talk on this at great length, because this thing was clouded and fogged with all sorts of misrepresentations. I put it to every honest Deputy that it is his duty to validate the procedure unless he can show wherein it was faulty or wherein it was calculated not to give justice. Nobody has addressed himself to that problem. Nobody has said in what way a person was going to have a better chance by having four people with the Referee, seeing that a majority had nothing to do with it. The four people were there to advise the Referee. He need not listen to their advice. He was bound, of course, to respect it, but he need not accept any advice that was given to him. Who is going to say that if that procedure had been adopted there was a better chance for anybody, who did not get a pension than there was under the system which is there? I do not think anyone has tried to show that there has been anything in this but care and fairness in accordance with the procedure that has been adopted. The procedure, I say again, could reasonably have been accepted as the right procedure as expressing the genuine intention of this House until we had a decision in the Supreme Court.
I ask Deputies to give this Bill a Second Reading as a just Bill, as a necessary Bill, and as a Bill that is designed in the public interest to deal with a problem of public importance. If anybody thinks that he has a solution to deal with cases, which are either known to himself or known to others, in accordance with the standards which he can see have been adopted, he can put forward an amendment of that sort and if it will meet the case and be a genuine solution, we will welcome it. I am sure the Minister will welcome it. I know I will, and that the Government will welcome it. I say give this Bill a Second Reading. I feel that there is no justification for the Dáil not to do that. Give it a Second Reading, and then on the Committee Stage let us consider if there are any Daniels who will be able to provide a solution.
