Army Pensions Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move, that the Bill be now read a Second Time. In this Bill, the Army Pensions Bill, 1946, there are contained four proposals which may be described as "major" in that they immediately affect large groups of persons; four proposals which may be termed "minor", because they will immediately affect only a few individuals, and two proposals which may be called "administrative" in that they are intended to achieve a more speedy and economical administration of the Army Pensions Acts.

The major proposals are:—

1. To provide an increase of pension for married men with children (Section 4).

2. To provide gratuities for persons who were partially dependent on deceased Army personnel (Section 10).

3. To provide pensions for persons who, on discharge, were suffering from tuberculosis aggravated by but not attributable to service in the forces (Section 12).

4. To extend the grant of special allowances to all persons who were awarded a medal for three months' continuous membership of the pre-Truce forces ending on the 11th July, 1921 (Section 14).

As regards the first major proposal to increase the rates of pensions, I must recall that before the emergency the maximum basic pension for men was 26/- a week, with an extra 5/- if the man was married. Under the 1943 Act, this rate was increased for emergency personnel to 42/- a week, with an additional 10/- in the case of a married man.

For officers the pre-emergency rate related the pension to a percentage of their pay. That worked out favourably for the higher ranks but unfavourably for the lower because, for instance, the maximum basic pension for a second lieutenant was £109 and the minimum £87 a year. The 1943 Act prescribed £120 a year as a minimum for all commissioned ranks and raised the married pension from £20 to £30 a year.

When the 1943 Bill was before the House it was criticised on the grounds that the rates did not differentiate sufficiently between married men with and without children, and it was suggested that the money made available for the increase by the Government would have been better spent by making provision for the disabled man with children. Recently the Government decided to make more money available for pensions and I have, therefore, decided to meet that criticism by using the money now made available to help those soldiers with families.

The Bill, therefore, in Section 4 proposes that the maximum basic pension should remain at 42/- a week for men, and that if the pensioner be married he should have a choice of either the old rate of 10/- a week, irrespective of children, or of a new rate of 7/6 a week for his wife and 4/- a week for each child. For the married man without children it is obvious that the old rate is more favourable, but if he has even one child the new rate will be better by 1/6 a week, and by another 4/- a week for every child after the first. For the married officer without children or even with one child, it is also clear that the old rate is the more favourable, but if he has two children he will benefit under the new rate by £10 6s. a year and by £10 8s. a year for every child after the second.

The Bill gives this choice of rates to every married person in receipt of an emergency period pension who was enlisted or commissioned before the passing of the Bill but not to those enlisted or commissioned thereafter, and such persons will only be entitled to the new rate.

The second major proposal covered by the Bill relates to the dependents of deceased Army personnel, that is dependents such as parents, grandparents, brothers or sisters as distinct from widows and orphans who are already provided for under the Act of 1927. Here, therefore, we are dealing principally, though not exclusively, with the dependent relative of single men. The Acts of 1923, 1927 and 1932 distinguish between total and partial dependency. Where a person was wholly dependent on a deceased person an annual pension, technically called an "allowance", was granted, but where the dependency fell short of total, it was deemed to be "partial" and a capital sum, called a "gratuity", was payable. The amount of the gratuity paid varied with the degree of dependency with the result that some dissatisfaction was caused by the award. To get over this difficulty I decided in the 1943 Act to drop the term "partial dependent", and to introduce a new category of dependency, called "main dependency", which provided for a reduced annual allowance in such cases. But unfortunately the plan did not work out in the manner hoped for. We were advised that to establish main dependency a person's income from all sources should be less than the contribution made at the date of his death by the soldier to the dependent. This had the effect of operating against the majority of claimants. If there is evidence of any degree of dependency, then the dependent should be entitled to some compensation by reason of the soldier's death, and to provide such compensation there seems no alternative but to revert to the old scheme of gratuities. Section 10 of the Bill, accordingly, distinguishes between three types of dependency—whole, main and partial. For wholly dependents it provides an allowance of £52 a year in the case of a deceased officer and £25 a year in that of a deceased soldier, and there may be granted as many allowances as there are total dependents; for main dependents, the allowances will be the same, but there will be only one allowance even if there are many main dependents; for partial dependents there will be a gratuity to one or more dependents but the gratuity or gratuities payable may not exceed in the aggregate a sum of £112 10s. 0d.

The third major proposal deals with ex-members of the forces who were discharged suffering from tuberculosis but who failed to obtain a pension, because the disease was regarded by the Army Pensions Board as not being attributable to service. The chief and the clearest problem here is that of tuberculosis. About 350 men have to date been discharged from the Army medically unfit suffering from one form or another of that dreadful disease, and about 260 have been awarded pensions, the remaining 90 failing because their condition was not regarded by the board as being attributable to service.

Dr. O'Higgins

What period does the 350 cover?

Mr. Traynor

The emergency. This Bill deals with the emergency period. It may be urged that many of these men were physically fit when they joined the Army, and that, consequently, their condition on discharge must have been due to service. But here we must remember that when these men were being recruited in 1940, the medical authorities had to examine the very large body of men who were responding to the national call. They were, therefore, under considerable pressure, and apart from that they had not the necessary equipment to carry out final tests. They had, therefore, perforce to rely on a general clinical examination, with the result that many men who were actually suffering from the disease were passed medically fit. Whatever the explanation, the problem remains, and as far as tuberculosis is concerned we are making a genuine effort to deal with it in Section 12 of this Bill. The rates of pension payable in such cases are those already provided by the 1937 Act.

The fourth major proposal of the Bill concerns the extension of special allowances. The Act of 1943 dealt, for the first time, with the very special problem of men and women who fought during Easter Week, 1916, and who are incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of mind or body. It has been urged that a case exists, though not, perhaps, with the same degree of urgency, for the extension of this allowance to all persons in receipt of pensions under the 1924 and 1934 Acts. Now, if the allowance be extended from the very special and restricted 1916 category of pensioner to the general Pre-True class, we shall have, at some stage, strong representations for the extension of the allowance to persons who can prove effective, though not pensionable, Pre-Truce service. For that reason, the Government has decided to deal with the whole problem now, instead of doing so by stages, and, in reaching that decision, they were influenced by the fact that, under the 1924 Act, the Board of Assessors reported membership even when there was no active service and, therefore, no pension; while, under the 1934 Act, the Referee confined himself to the active service aspect exclusively, so that many members with good service, but short or active service, received no acknowledgment of the part they had rendered in the struggle. The Bill, therefore, in Section 14, provides that the allowance may be granted to any person incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of body or mind who has been awarded a medal for continuous membership of three months ending on 11th July, 1921, of the various forces set out in the 1932 Act. In other words, as the title for pensions, under the 1924 and 1934 Acts, is the possession of a military service certificate, so the title for a special allowance under the present Bill will be the possession of a medal. Hence, this proposal may, to a certain extent, solve the problem often raised in this House of doing something for men who are incapable of self-support and who are not in receipt of pensions, although they may have rendered good and efficient service to the country in the struggle for Independence.

The proposal to make the qualification for a special allowance the possession of a medal, rather than a military service certificate, would seem to be somewhat far-reaching. I want, however, to assure the House that neither the allowance nor the medal will be given without clear recorded proof of service. In the first place, both the 1916 medals and the medals with bars are issuable only on the basis of military service certificates granted by the Board of Assessors under the 1924 Act and the Referee, with the Advisory Committee, under that of 1934. I can assure the House that the utmost care has been, and is being, exercised in the award of these medals, and, as a further precaution before any allowance may issue, this Bill provides that the evidence on which the medal was awarded may, in case of doubt, be reviewed. Again, in order to qualify, the applicant must be incapable of self-support by reason of age or of permanent infirmity of mind or body. That incapacity must be proved to the satisfaction of another statutory and, therefore, independent body, the Army Pensions Board.

Coincident with these major proposals, we are extending the date of applications for would and for disability pensions, and for the dependents of deceased persons. Under Section 8, the date for dependency applications will now be 12 months from the death of the soldier or before the 26th April, 1946, whichever is the later: that for wound pensions, under Section 11, will be 12 months from the date of the soldier's discharge or before the 26th April, 1946: and that for disability pensions, under Section 13, within four years of the soldier's discharge or before the 26th April, 1946.

We now come to what I have called the "minor" proposals of the Bill which will immediately affect only individuals rather than groups. The proposals are:—

1. To abolish the restrictive clause of the 1923 Act whereby dependents of deceased pensioners cannot receive allowances unless the pensioner died within four years after receiving the would for which he obtained a pension.

2. To provide that where a person received compensation in respect of death or injury independently of an award under the Army Pensions Acts, the Minister, in making such award, may take into consideration not only (as at present provided) compensation received before the award but also compensation received after the award had been made.

3. To abolish the restriction of the 1927 Act whereby a person who receives a would pension or gratuity under that Act may not receive another pension or gratuity in respect of another disablement contracted during the emergency.

4. To modify the restriction of the 1927 Act, as amended by the 1943 Act, whereby certain officers are deprived of a married pension because, for certain definite reasons outside their control, they ceased to draw lodging, fuel and light allowance immediately prior to their discharge.

As regards the first minor proposal, the Act of 1923 provides allowances for the total dependents of deceased pensioners, subject to the condition that the pensioner died solely from the wound in respect of which he was in receipt of a pension and also subject to the restriction that death ensued within four years from the date of the wound. In the 1927 Act and, later, in the 1932 Act, the condition remained but the restriction was removed, so that the dependents qualified under the 1927 and 1932 Acts no matter when the death occurred, provided it was due to the disablement for which the deceased had been receiving a pension. There is, therefore, a wide disparity between the provisions of the 1923 Act, on the one hand, and the 1927 and 1932 Acts, on the other, and a recent case has brought to notice the injustice of the restriction.

As far as I am aware, the case referred to is the only one involved at the moment. There are, however, 49 pensioners under the 1923 Act similarly circumstanced, but as 34 of these have pensions based on a disablement of 50 per cent. or under and are not, therefore, likely to die solely from their wounds, it is estimated that only about 15 will be affected in the course of time.

Another minor proposal deals with the question of double compensation in respect of the same death or injury. Under the Act of 1923, if a person be entitled to a pension, allowance or gratuity under the Army Pensions Acts and if that person receives from an independent source compensation for the same death or injury, then the Minister, in fixing the amount of pension, allowance or gratuity, may take into consideration the compensation awarded. If, for instance, a soldier in the course of his duty be involved in a motor accident and if he obtains damages against the owner of the vehicle, then such compensation may be taken into consideration when fixing the amount of his pension under the Army Pensions Acts. What usually happens in practice is that the soldier's degree of disablement is first determined by the Army Pensions Board, but if the Department knows that a civil action is pending, it withholds the award of pension until the result of the suit is known. If damages are awarded, it makes the award of the pension appropriate to the degree of disablement subject to the condition that it will not be payable until the amount of damages is worked off by reference to the assessed amount of the pension. This position has obtained since the Acts began to operate, but recently we have been advised that as the Acts stand we may take such compensation into consideration before the grant is made, but if the pension, allowance or gratuity be awarded and paid before the compensation is awarded, then we cannot consider it or alter the grant in any way. This leads to the anomaly that the claimant whose award of compensation is known beforehand suffers in comparison with the person who does not disclose that an action is pending or that compensation has been received. The section, therefore, provides that, in making the award of pensions or allowances, the Minister may have regard to any compensation granted in respect of the same death or injury even if that compensation be granted after the award of pension. In other words it empowers the Minister to review his original award.

Sections 5 and 7 deal with the same problem: that of the Army man who on discharge received a would pension or gratuity for disablement incurred during his service, and who, on subsequently re-enlisting during the emergency, contracted a fresh disablement. There are four such cases but only three have so far been investigated. In the first case, the ex-soldier had a small wound pension for a fracture of the right clavicle, and during his emergency service fractured his right elbow, so that his disability has increased from 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. In the second case the soldier had received a small gratuity in respect of a gun-shot would in the left hand, but during his second period of service he contracted rheumatism so that his present disability is 100 per cent. In the third case the soldier had also received a small gratuity for injuries to his right hand and during his second period of service he incurred a fracture of the left knee for which he is entitled to a pension. Now in these three cases, the pension in respect of the second disablement cannot be paid because under Section 20 of the Act of 1927 no pension or gratuity could be granted to any person to whom a pension or gratuity had previously been granted. This is obviously unjust, and it is due to the fact that the framers of the 1927 Act did not or could not contemplate the circumstances which have arisen during the last few years. It dealt exclusively with peace-time contingencies and not with war-time emergencies. Hence in Section 5 we are remedying the defect in the case where originally there was a wound pension in existence, and in Section 7 the other cases where a gratuity was originally granted. The Bill provides that where an old wound pension exists it will merge in the new pension, and where a gratuity was received, if the fresh disablement be due to disease and reaches the minimum degree necessary, the man will receive a disability pension, and if the new disablement be due to a wound, the man will receive a wound pension or a gratuity according to the degree of the disablement.

Dr. O'Higgins

May I ask the Minister if these three or four men who are referred to as having 30 or 40 per cent. disabilities from the past were passed in as medically fit?

Mr. Traynor

They were.

Dr. O'Higgins

In spite of the fact that they were 30 or 40 per cent. disabled?

Mr. Traynor

In spite of the fact that they were receiving some amount in respect of past disablement, they were passed.

General Mulcahy

During the emergency?

Mr. Traynor

Yes. It can be easily understood that an injury to the clavicle could be very easily overlooked or that an injury to the elbow or knee might be easily concealed. I mentioned in the beginning that the medical authorities did not have at their disposal in the early days of the emergency the equipment which in ordinary times would enable them to detect injuries of that kind.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am not finding fault but a knee injury should not go through undetected.

Mr. Traynor

A fourth minor proposal deals with the case of officers who, having been discharged medically unfit, obtain a personal pension but who, though married, cannot receive a married pension because of the technicality that, immediately before their discharge, they were not in occupation of married quarters or were not in receipt of lodging, fuel and light allowance. This allowance ceases when an officer has been absent on sick leave or has been undergoing treatment for a period of 12 months. After that time and for a further period of six months, he receives half his normal rate of pay without any allowance. Hence it can happen and, in fact, has actually happened that an officer is discharged after 18 months' sick absence and as he was not in receipt of lodging, fuel and light allowance at the date of his discharge as required by Section 10 of the 1927 Act, as amended by the Act of 1943, he did get a personal pension but he was not entitled to a married pension. This bears hard on the officer but it is still harder on his dependents because even if he died from the disease in respect of which he was drawing a pension his widow and orphans would not be entitled to any allowances under the Army Pensions Acts.

It does seem unjust that both the officer and his dependents should be thus deprived because of a technicality in the Acts, and I am, therefore, in Section 6 of the Bill, remedying this defect.

Finally, there remain two administration proposals introduced for the better and more expenditious administration of the Acts. The first deals with the payment of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance to applicants under the Army Pensions Acts. Section 21 of the Act of 1927 and Section 20 of the Act of 1932 restrict the payment of these expenses and allowances to claimants who attend before the Army Pensions Board in Dublin, because both Acts contemplated that all claimants would be examined by the board in Dublin. Last year, however, as I have already informed the Dáil, I was forced in the interests of the many persons claiming under the 1943 Act to appoint pensions medical officers throughout the country so as to expedite the determination of claims and to overhaul the arrears of work before the board. By means of these officers, we cleared up all claims outstanding in Cork, Limerick, Clare and Kerry, but we were unable technically to reimburse the expenses of the claimants. Section 9 has, therefore, been introduced to enable us to pay such expenses and thus to expedite the determination of the claims.

Another proposal to speed up the administration of the Acts is contained in Section 15 of the Bill. As the Acts stand at present, every application for a pension or gratuity, however unmeritorious on its face, must be referred to the Army Pensions Board, unless it is frivolous, mala fide, or otherwise fradulent. This means that many claims which do not fall within those three categories but which, nevertheless, have not prima facie any chance of succeeding must be referred to the board, and this, in turn, involved travelling expenses of the claimants, the cost of maintenance and investigation in hospital, and waste of time and energy by the medical officer concerned. In Section 10 of the Act of 1943 the Oireachtas empowered the Minister not to refer an application for an allowance to the board where he was of the opinion that the investigation by the board was not necessary for the purpose of enabling him to decide whether or not a grant should be made. Hence all that is sought in this particular section is to extend similar powers to the Minister in claims for gratuities and pensions as distinct from dependents' allowances. The applicant will not be prejudiced by the proposal, because if he appeals his case will be sent to the board. The powers sought will only be used in cases which have obviously no chance of succeeding, and, by not sending them forward, the board will be set free to deal more fully and expeditiously with the claims of genuine applicants.

Dr. O'Higgins

Might I ask the Minister how is the present Army Pensions Board constituted? I do not want the names of the personnel.

Mr. Traynor

It is constituted of two medical men and a civilian chairman.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to welcome the Bill, particularly as one who, for a considerable time, has advocated the provision of pensions for men who have had tuberculosis aggravated, excited, or in any way increased by Army service but which disease was not directly attributable to service during the emergency period. The Minister was justified in bringing in this Bill to deal with that evil. Deputies of every Party are familiar with the case of a soldier who had the misfortune to contract, say, a severe cold ten or 11 years ago, prior to the emergency, and who subsequently engaged in service, and later contracted tuberculosis. In many of those cases, when the soldier applied for the pension which was normally payable to ex-Army personnel, he found himself ineligible for a pension because of the fact that the tuberculosis was not contracted during the emergency period. I think the Minister deserves the gratitude of the House for this amendment. Very many soldiers are affected, and up to the present those unfortunate victims had no means of livelihood other than what they might get as outdoor relief. Of course, under the proposed Public Health Bill they would now be eligible for contributions from the rates, either directly or in the form of employment from the local authority. Apparently, we either have a feast or a famine, because once this Bill goes through those men will automatically qualify for a pension.

I imagine that the success of this Section 12 will depend largely on the sympathy with which the board approaches the examination of those cases. It would appear to a layman, at any rate, that if a soldier got, say, pleurisy as far back as 1930, subsequently recovered and engaged in service, but later contracted tuberculosis, up to the present the disease would not have been attributable to emergency period service. I hope that under the conditions which will prevail under this Act a soldier so affected will not need to have any doubt whatever about securing his pension. Looking at the matter from the point of view of one who has no medical knowledge, I imagine that the sympathy with which the board will examine applications of that kind must largely govern, in certain border-line cases at any rate, the decision as to whether a soldier will get a pension or not. In connection with Section 12 also I should like to ask the Minister if it will apply to a soldier who contracted tuberculosis prior to the emergency, and who was discharged prior to the emergency, or whether he would be already covered by the 1927 Act.

I want to refer to one other matter which is not in the Bill, but which, as it is a wide, amending Bill, might well be in it, and that is the question of a gratuity payable to the widow and children of a deceased officer. I raised this matter with the Minister some time ago and he said it was being considered. That comes under the 1937 pension scheme, and, as only a small number is affected by it, I should be glad if the Minister would expedite consideration of the matter, and would also ensure that it be retrospective. As he is aware, under that scheme, unless an officer has retired before his death, his widow and children are ineligible for gratuity. A number of officers found themselves in the unfortunate position that they were seriously ill, possibly on their death-beds, when they had presented to them for signature a form of resignation from the Army. As the Minister is aware, the condition of people in that state is considerably aggravated by such procedure. It really amounts to putting a pistol to their heads. I should be glad if the Minister would consider that matter. I do not know whether, under this Bill, he proposes to amend that pension scheme. It affects only a few. Of course, as time goes on, unless it is amended it will affect a greater number. In fact, in the last 12 months, there were a few cases in which officers' widows and children were ineligible for the gratuity.

Another favourable aspect of the Bill is the fact that it gives to officers and soldiers the right to choose whether they will opt to take the old marriage rate or the new. I would again impress on the Minister the necessity for a sympathetic approach in the case of personnel suffering from tuberculosis. Perhaps he would also tell us, when he is replying, the number of officers and men—irrespective of the emergency period—who have been affected by tuberculosis.

Dr. O'Higgins

Before dealing with the Bill, I should like to call the attention of the Minister and his Department to the fact that a very desirable practice has grown up in this country, at least, in regard to other Departments, of giving an explanatory memorandum or having a White Paper circulated in conjunction with a Bill. That makes life very much easier for Deputies. It is a practice which grew up first on the other side of the water, and it was found to be so successful and so popular that it was extended to all Bills. Now, we got three or four Bills in our post last week: one of them was this Army Pensions Bill that we have before us, and three of them came from other Departments, which presumably were just as busy as the Department of Defence. Each of the other Bills was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, although in fact, I think that none of the other Bills was as difficult or as tedious to follow as this particular Bill. This is a small Bill. It does not claim to do a tremendous amount. What it is doing, certainly, is beneficial and will be welcomed by every Deputy, but this small Bill either amends, extends or relates to seven other Army Pensions Acts. Now, the fact that this the eighth Army Pensions Bill—and if you take in the Army Service Act and the other Army pensions scheme, this is the tenth, in 20 years, dealing with a tiny Army—is doing a lot of harm to Army interests, because the outsider, the man in the street, measures the volume and degree and extent of pensions by the multiplicity of Acts passed affecting that particular service.

It is a little bit farcical when we consider that both the State and the Army have only just about come of age—they are just a little over 21 years old—that we should be handling at the moment our tenth pensions Bill for a force that in numbers would not equal half an average parish. In addition, I may say that we have had, I think, 23 Defence Forces Bills. Of course, it might be said that they are continuing Bills, but however that may be, I think it is about time that we got away from the introduction of a temporary Bill every year, and that it is about time that we got consolidated into one Act all these comparatively minor Army Pensions Acts. Take the case of an ordinary Deputy who has to earn his livelihood, even though he may be a lawyer, he would find it very hard to study this Bill properly. Put that Deputy face to face with this little Bill and say to him: "Read that to-night", and he will find that he has to delve back into seven other Acts dating back to 1923 before he can properly understand the contents of these four sheets of paper. I think it would be better to bring in a comprehensive Act with amendments, and thus rescind all the previous Acts.

Now, with regard to the Bill itself, as I said earlier, I certainly welcome the new proposals contained in the Bill. It is an extension of allowances or pensions, and, in some cases, an extension of dates. I tried, in reading this Bill—but I confess that it was only from recollection or memory—to get a picture of the pensionable position of members of our Defence Forces, and as far as I can piece together, from memory, the pension position from the first Act of 1923 to the one now before us, my view of the thing, which may be wrong, is that a soldier who is disabled as a result of a wound is definitely pensionable, no matter when he received the wound or when he was discharged; that a soldier disabled from disease is pensionable if that disease was acquired prior to the 1st October, 1924, or if that disease was acquired or aggravated by service subsequent to the 3rd September, 1939. There is a lapse of some sixteen years during which if any soldier acquired a disease, became disabled from that disease and was discharged as a result of it, and if the disease was acquired subsequent to the 1st October, 1924, then as far as I can trust my recollection of the various Acts we have dealt with, that man's case is not covered except his disease was aggravated by service during the emergency. I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong there. If I am correct, then it shows a terribly serious omission: that we pension soldiers disabled from disease acquired prior to October, 1924; we pension soldiers disabled by disease subsequent to the 3rd September, 1939, and we accept no responsibility whatsoever for soldiers who were disabled or who died of a disease, which was attributable to service, between October, 1924, and September, 1939. If I am correct, and if we are bringing in an Act to amend those previous Acts and to alter the dates contained in the previous Acts, then there is a glaring omission in this Bill.

Now, I should like to get the Minister's direction with regard to soldiers suffering from tuberculosis or discharged because of tuberculosis attributable either to service or aggravated by service. We are putting through another Bill in this House, and that other Bill provides for full pay and allowances for people suffering from infectious diseases including tuberculosis. At certain stages they will get full pay and allowances. Am I to read into this section dealing with tuberculosis that that other Bill applies to everybody in this country except the soldier, and that the soldier is going to get somewhat worse treatment than every other individual in this country? I presume that the rights of pension given for partial disablement as a result of tuberculosis are not as big as full pay and allowances. If that is correct, then we are discriminating in a very peculiar manner and in a very unjust manner against the man who developed tuberculosis in Army service, as compared with the man who developed the disease behind the shop counter, or out in the fields, or in a factory. If we are doing that, then instead of giving anything by this Bill, we are taking away from the individual soldier who is suffering from that particular disease.

Now, I believe—and I say this in no critical or controversial manner at all— that very many and continuing injustices are being done in the handling and assessment of claims put forward by disabled soldiers, whether the disability was due to wounds or disease. Very unsatisfactory verdicts are very frequently given, verdicts that on their face at least any medical man, reading the claim, sizing up the evidence, would disagree with. I believe that such verdicts are being given because every individual member of the board is doing his work too well and too honestly. That is a peculiar thing to say. But how is the board constituted? It is a board of three persons. One of them is a medical man, nominated by the Minister for Defence, with no restrictions or reservations. It is more or less obviously his duty to see that the claimant gets a fair crack of the whip. Professionally, he will do his work honestly, but he is there to look after the ex-soldier. There are two other members of the board. One of the other members is also a doctor. But there is a difference when you come to the second man—he can only be appointed by the approval of the Minister for Finance. That does not apply to the first man. Then, when you come to the third man, the man whom you may regard as the Referee, he again can only be appointed by the approval of the Minister for Finance. In practice, it amounts to two watchdogs on behalf of Finance, and one with regard to the Army.

That is the view I take of it, and it is certainly an explanation for the very unsatisfactory decisions that every one of us, as Deputies, handles from time to time. There may be some other explanation. But every one of us is coming in contact with cases, or our attention is being called to cases in which most of us are thoroughly dissatisfied with the verdicts given. It may be that the dice is loaded in the manner I say, or there may be some other explanation. But one thing is certain, that there is a growing need and there has been a growing need in this country for the past 18 or 19 years for some such Department as exists in other countries under the name of Soldier's Friend Office. Elsewhere, if a man feels he has a grievance, that he has not got justice, that his claim has not been very fully explored, that the verdict is an unsatisfactory one, there is a State Department, a State-paid officer with a staff to whom he can go, who looks into the case and, if he thinks the ex-soldier has not got simple justice, he has the right, over the head of the board and everybody else, to bring the case directly under the Minister's notice, and the Minister very frequently reopens the case and sends it for review.

The very form that a man has got to fill up if he is claiming a pension in this or in most other countries is entirely too intricate, too detailed, and too definite for the ordinary ex-soldier. He is not trained to know what is of importance or not in filling up the claim, and some Department, such as exists elsewhere, is unquestionably desirable. It is not a very big office, and it is not a very expensive project. But, from my own knowledge in the Minister's Department, I know that such an office is required. When I was Director of Medical Services in the Army, I spent one-quarter of my time getting reviewed by the Minister unsatisfactory and unjust decisions with regard to disabled claimants. In most of the cases reopened and reviewed, the verdict was reversed, and the applicant got his pension. I remember one case of an officer who was dying of tuberculosis in a workhouse in South Africa, and it was turned down as not being attributable to service. Although it was no part of my duty, and I could have been reprimanded for butting in on such matters, I consistently and regularly did it. In that particular case I was able to show that, out of some 14 officers and nurses who had carried out duty in that particular post, seven or nine of them had gone down with tuberculosis. The decision was reversed and that man died in comparative comfort rather than in absolute destitution. I do not intend to mention them here in public, but I can recollect dozens of cases which, by that kind of officious interference, I got reopened and the decisions reversed.

Since my time everything in the Army has become more militarily efficient, more highly regimented. Nobody can go outside of his own Department and butt into another person's Department. But there is nobody pressing or bringing to the Minister's notice for review, for reference back, cases where unsatisfactory or apparently unsatisfactory findings have been arrived at. Officers, agents, functionaries of one kind or another, are being appointed in this country ad lib. Money is being spent very freely in and by all the Departments. That modest office is surely an office that is well overdue. If it was for nothing else than to prevent being made the type of speech I am making, it would be worth the money expended upon it, because, if there was such a tribunal there, with such an officer and such a staff to handle the assessments, to refer a case to the Minister if it struck them that it was a case which should be reviewed, then we would be perfectly satisfied with that tribunal and with the Minister reviewing the case later on.

It may be said that every case comes up before the Minister. Of course it does. It comes before the Minister with a verdict. But, when cases are referred back to him a second time, with somebody pointing out that there is something further to be looked into, that there is apparently an unjust decision, then the very same Minister or any Minister would ensure that there was a review and that the decisions were reversed. I think it is a terrible thing to think that there is even one person disabled in the service of the country, crippled to a high degree in health, directly as a result of that service, who is not receiving an adequate or reasonable or just pension under any or all of our pensions schemes. Speaking conscientiously, as a person with a certain connection with that class of work in the Department of Defence, I assure the Minister that there are very many cases of unsatisfactory verdicts. I am not criticising the way in which any individual did his work, but I am urging that a small Department of State, a soldiers' friend department, be set up to assist those unfortunate men in filling up their claims or, where that special department considers an injustice has been done, to act further by having the right to place the verdict directly before the Minister and ask for a review. We all would be perfectly satisfied with the result of such a review.

I do not like the constitution of a board dealing with the result of disease and disabilities, where there are two doctors and a layman. Speaking from a professional point of view and certainly not in any offensive way, I would say you have the most ignorant of the three deciding the case, when the two doctors divide and take opposite views on a professional matter, on a matter of the physical condition of some organ of a person's body. The layman, who does not claim to have any expert medical knowledge, is the deciding man in such a case. If there is to be a board of three, there should be a medical officer, appointed by the Minister for Defence, a second medical officer appointed, perhaps, by the Department of Finance, and a medical chairman appointed by some neutral association such as the Medical Association of Ireland. Then there would be two medical opinions and no quarrelling with regard to the results.

My view with regard to this Bill is that it is well conceived, generous and a step in the right direction. However, if my conception of the gap between October, 1924, and 3rd September, 1939, is correct, then there is scope in the Bill, by amendment, to extend the previous Acts, so as to cover the cases where disease is acquired to a certain degree of disablement between those two dates and men were discharged from the Army prior to the 3rd September, 1939.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister and the Department on having the courage to bring it forward so quickly after the emergency. In principle, it deals with cases of soldiers who incurred tuberculosis during service or had it aggravated by service and it is necessary to make immediate provision for them. We heard various complaints here from time to time about soldiers discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis and thrown on the rates, unemployed and destitute. Deputies throughout the country know that representations were made to them on various occasions by such persons. It is a source of great satisfaction to us now to see that that matter is being dealt with.

There were also some men discharged from the Army suffering from cardiac disease. Many of the older men rushed into the Army to give service when the emergency was declared. After periods of strenuous training and manoeuvres, many of them were found to be suffering from cardiac disease and had to be discharged, and no provision was made for them. I think the Minister should look into such cases. Though at an advanced age, they were physically fit on entering the Army, and therefore they deserve some consideration.

Section 2 certainly remedies a great injustice. The 1923 Act contained a proviso that, unless a man died within four years of receiving his wound, his dependents would not benefit. That is not contained in the other Acts and it is certainly right and just that it should be removed from the 1923 Act. There is a similar provision in all the Acts under which in the case of the death of an old I.R.A. man, a man with pre-Truce or post-Truce service, in receipt of a wound pension, his widow or family can be provided for only if he was married before he was wounded. The number of such men in receipt of wound pensions under all the Acts is about 1,000 and the number likely to die at this stage solely from the wound in respect of which the pension was granted is very small. I would ask the Minister to consider whether, in justice, he should not also remove that clause and fix some reasonable date, before which a man in receipt of a wound pension should have been married. There are different dates in different Acts. For instance, in the case of the death of a man in receipt of a disease pension, his widow and family can benefit only if he were married before the 1st October, 1928. There is a fixed date which should be extended. Disease takes some time to show itself and takes some time to kill a man. Those two points I have mentioned should be dealt with in some reasonable way, to meet the very few cases which are likely to arise.

Section 14 is certainly generous— most generous. This section provides that any man or woman who holds a medal in respect of pre-Truce service in the forces will, if he or she becomes destitute by reason of infirmity or age, receive, if single, a pension of £78 per annum. That means that if he holds a medal in respect of continuous membership during the period of three months ending on 11th July, 1921, he does not require to have a service certificate. If he has a medal certifying membership, plus the usual service required for membership, he will, if he is destitute by reason of infirmity or age, receive a pension of £78 per annum, if he is single; if married, he will receive a pension of £97 10s. per annum. If he has a family under 16 years of age, the children will each get an allowance of £10 8s. per annum. That is undoubtedly the most generous provision that any Government could bring in to definitely ensure that any person who gave service to this country pre-Truce will not die destitute if he or she is infirm or incapacitated by old age.

Mr. O'Leary

Some of them have died in the county homes.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

This legislation will ensure that that cannot happen again. We have listened here for many years to complaints about inadequate treatment for these people. I made many complaints myself and Deputies on all sides of the House have made representations in connection with this matter. We should be all very glad that our complaints were not made in vain. We found the Minister ready and willing at all times to listen to us and now he has provided this very generous section.

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that it is a laborious job for any layman to read all the Acts mentioned here and to try to interpret all the different amendments to the different Acts. It would be very desirable if we could have one Act which would include them all and which could be read easily and interpreted by any Deputy.

I ask the Minister not to spoil a good job. This Bill will be welcomed generally. Some legislation along these lines was badly required. As a matter of fact, this legislation is something that might be described as long overdue.

I suggest that the Minister should endeavour to make this Act the final one and, in that connection, it might be well to make the addition to Section 2 that has been suggested. Under that section, as it stands, the number likely to benefit would be about 15. Of the 1,000 at the moment in receipt of these pensions, the number likely to die solely from wounds is so small that the Minister would be well advised to include them in this Bill.

From the point of view of the old I.R.A., this is a generous Bill. It is generous also from the point of view of the Army and of the men affected by the 1923 Act. I welcome it very heartily and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the points I have made with regard to the amendment of Section 2.

Mr. Norton

I think there will be general agreement that this is a very technical Bill and it is exceedingly difficult for the ordinary Deputy to see the Bill properly in perspective without reference to the variety of Acts amended by it. Even then one may get a picture of this Bill which is not a true reflex of what the Bill is intended to contain. I suggest to the Minister that if he has to come here again with Bills of this character he might, as Deputy O'Higgins suggested, emulate the example of other Departments and give us a White Paper which will explain the provisions of the measure. The White Paper would be cheaper, because we then would not require a whole lot of wet towels endeavouring to find out what the Bill contains. I venture to suggest that even the Minister, if he had not the benefit of highly technical advice, would find himself in difficulties trying to relate the provisions of the Bill to the various parent Acts and he would have some trouble in explaining what it will mean for the people who will benefit under its provisions.

I should like to get some information on a number of matters. Could the Minister tell us what number of claims for disability pensions has been received and at what rate are those claims being dealt with? I know from experience that it is a rather slow process to get a decision from the Army authorities on a disability pension claim. If you get a reply quickly it will mean you are getting nothing, but if the claim has any merit it seems to be a particularly tedious job to convince the board that there are merits in the applicant's case. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us some indication of the number of claims received and the rate at which they are being disposed of.

I think it is essential in the case of claims for disability pensions that an effort should be made to speed up decisions. Many of the men discharged from the Army on medical grounds are usually in a physically imperfect state. At a time when it is difficult for a physically perfect man to secure employment, it is particularly difficult for a physically imperfect man to secure employment, with the result that a claimant for a disability pension is usually unemployed and his state of distress and impecuniosity is not made easier by the fact that he has to wait for a long period for a decision on his pension application. Where the claimant is a married man with dependent children, his position is still worse, and I therefore ask the Minister, who, I know, has considerable personal sympathy in this matter, to do whatever is necessary and possible to speed up the adjudication on claims for disability pensions, particularly when they come from persons whose state of health is such that they cannot take up employmen and who, for one reason or another, are unemployed at the time their applications for pensions are submitted.

I join with Deputy T. O'Sullivan in welcoming the provisions in Section 14 which, I think, is probably the most useful section in the Bill and which will remove a very serious blot on our Army pensions legislation to-day. We all know cases of old I.R.A. men, those who served pre-Truce, who during the past 25 years have been forced by economic circumstances here to emigrate. We know of others who, through economic pressure at home, found it extremely difficult to keep the wolf from the door. We know of unfortunate persons who were compelled to go into the county homes and spend the remaining years of their lives in these institutions, getting relief only when death claims them. Many of these had no pensions whatever and others had such beggarly pensions that they provided no sustenance for them.

I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to extend to pre-Truce I.R.A. men, those who gave three months' service up to 11th April, 1921, the special scheme of allowances provided in the 1943 Act in respect of persons with 1916 service. We can now be sure that those who served in the pre-Truce I.R.A. need not die penniless in the workhouses. That, too often, has been the destiny of Irish soldiers. We can now by the provisions of Section 14 ensure that old I.R.A. men, who, through ill-health, infirmity or economic adversity are reduced to a condition in which they are unable to provide for themselves, will get the scale of pensions provided in the 1943 Act for those who, up to now, could get it only if they had 1916 service.

That is a very substantial advance on previous Army pensions legislation, and I am sure that not only will it be welcomed by those concerned but by the nation, as it ought to be, and, I am sure, will be welcomed by this House which is the product of the service and sacrifice of these men and by nationalist Ireland, because I feel sure that all Parties in this House are anxious to ensure that those who made these sacrifices and rendered this service should be treated decently by the State in the winter of their lives. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to incorporate this provision. It will provide some solace for persons who, without the section, might have to look forward to an extremely bleak old age.

A new section, Section 12, finds its place in the Bill relating to the cases of persons suffering from tuberculosis. The Minister will probably agree—the section is an admission that he does agree—that previously it was extremely difficult for a person suffering from tuberculosis on discharge from the Army to establish that he was entitled to the pension under the Army Pensions Act, because the legislation was so construed that the person concerned usually found it very difficult to show that his disability arose out of and was aggravated by his service. The Minister is now easing the position in respect of discharge as a result of tuberculosis, but I think that even the easement provided in Section 12 can still give rise to considerable difficulties for applicants for pensions who are suffering from tuberculosis.

The section provides that such persons, at the date of examination by the Army Pensions Board, must be suffering from a disablement not being less in degree than 80 per cent. due to tuberculosis aggravated, accelerated or excited by a wound attributable to service and received during the emergency, a disease attributable to service during the emergency or service in the forces during the emergency. In the case of persons discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis, the very fact that a man has been discharged with that disease is itself a pretty severe shock to the man, and it is extremely difficult for persons suffering from tuberculosis to display that amount of energy necessary to get and to retain employment, so that the unfortunate soldier discharged and certified as suffering from tuberculosis, first, finds himself certified as suffering from what is generally regarded as a very grave disease, and, secondly, knows that his chances of getting and retaining employment are extremely poor. If his discomfiture is to be aggravated by the fact that he has to go through a sieve to satisfy an Army Medical Board that he really has the degree of disability necessary to obtain a pension, one can understand his state of mental anguish.

In other spheres and realms of activity in this country there is an awakening recognition that we must make war on tuberculosis in every possible way, and there is a widening disposition to recognise that there must be generous treatment in the form of maintenance for persons who are the victims of tuberculosis. I suggest that, in that respect, the Army has a contribution to make, which can best be made by treating in a generous way, in an understanding and humane way, applicants for pensions who are suffering from tuberculosis, and that the State ought to recognise, in respect of soldiers discharged suffering from tuberculosis, that it has not a mere responsibility to work out a decision with machine-like precision but an obligation to ensure that the soldier is regarded as a human being, with a wife and children to maintain, and that he is precipitated into a world suffering from a disease which is at once a handicap in the matter of obtaining employment.

If it is established that he is suffering from tuberculosis, the Army pensions machinery ought to lean on the side of treating him as sympathetically as possible in respect of his disability and of recognising that, having served the State in the Defence Forces, a situation should not be created in which it can be said that a man was discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis and that he got no pension for his service in the Army. I am sure that everybody would prefer that, so far as the administration of the Army pensions machinery is concerned, it should err on the side of generosity, even on the side of a tolerable, understanding extravagance in respect of claims for pensions from the victims of tuberculosis, rather than that it should operate with machine-like precision. Its operation in the latter sense might result in considerable hardship being inflicted on those who served in the Army.

So far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned, I welcome them personally and on behalf of this Party. I said at the outset that this was a highly technical Bill. When you multiply it by all the other Bills which have been introduced, and you then try to look up Defence Force Regulation No. so-and-so and get the various documents before you, you find yourself in a forest of pension legislation, so that it is not easy to see in what direction you should look for information.

Mr. O'Donnell

You cannot see the wood for the trees.

Mr. Norton

It is even worse than that. The Minister might also give consideration to the fact that this Army pensions legislation has now become a rather tangled mass of pretty technical legislation. In order to elucidate the position, so far at least as Deputies are concerned, the Minister might endeavour to produce a leaflet giving the main outlines of Army pensions legislation. We can get them fairly clearly enough so far as service pensions are concerned, but the Minister might endeavour to give us the legislation so far as it affects disability pensions and time expired persons, and set out for us what the position is in respect of persons who have had periods of less than 21 years' service. If the Minister were to give us the broad outlines of the provisions of existing legislation under these heads, I think he would be doing a very useful service for members of the House who are interested in this matter. By giving them some informed opinion on the legislation which, paradoxically enough, they have passed, he might, at the same time, be able to give to the persons concerned some better understanding of their rights and something more hopeful to look forward to.

Mr. Cogan

On behalf of this Party, I should like to express approval of this Bill. It is gratifying to see that an attempt is being made now to remove some of the grievances which exist both in respect of the men who gave their services for the freedom of this country, and of those who gave their services during the emergency. In common with other Deputies, I have received a good number of complaints from men who were discharged from the Army during the emergency as being medically unfit, of men who were certified to be suffering from tuberculosis, and failed to establish their case for a pension.

I think that the provisions in Section 12 are generous. Like Deputy Norton, I feel that 80 per cent. disablement is difficult to establish in all cases. There is no doubt but that men who have been discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis find it extremely difficult to obtain employment. Some of those men have been discharged for a number of years. During that period they have been unemployed during practically the whole time, and have thereby suffered grave hardship. It is extremely doubtful if a person suffering from 75 per cent. disablement is in a position to obtain satisfactory employment. While the provisions for those suffering from 80 per cent. disablement are generous, I think that something should be done for those whose infection is not so great. It might be possible, too, I suggest, to do something for men who joined during the emergency, and after a comparatively short period of service were discharged as being medically unfit, and have now almost recovered their health. Those men, as a result of volunteering for service in the State, lost their health and their employment, and have since suffered considerable hardship. Even though their health has now been almost completely restored, it must be remembered that they have made a very severe sacrifice owing to the fact that, due to their short period of service, they did not qualify for any gratuity worth mentioning.

As regards tuberculosis in the Army, I have the feeling, which the Minister may be able to confirm or disprove, that Army service is conducive to tuberculosis. At any rate, the statistics will show that the number of men in the Army suffering from the disease, or who have had to be discharged from the Army owing to the disease, is much greater than the number in the corresponding age groups in other occupations. This may be due, to a considerable extent, to the service which they had to give, to the strenuous nature of Army manoeuvres, and so forth. I may be in conflict with medical opinion in saying that, and may be speaking out of the depths of my ignorance in regard to medical matters when I express the opinion that tuberculosis is caused mainly by exposure to infection. Take the case of a man who goes into the Army. He may be billeted in the same room with a man who, perhaps, is suffering from the disease, and, as a result of that close contact, contracts the disease.

I think that far-reaching precautions should be taken to examine men, from the health point of view, on joining the Army. The fact that a man is billeted with another man suffering from the disease renders him more likely to contract the disease than if, say, he were living in his own home. Personally, I am of the opinion that tuberculosis is caused mainly by exposure to infection. This is proved by the fact that we find that quite a number of people contract the disease from their close contact with some member of their families who is suffering from it. For these reasons, I hope that the precautions which I suggest should be put into operation. I join with all the other Deputies in welcoming the Bill. It will be rather pleasant for Deputies and others to know that a very large number of deserving men can now feel that they have not been unfairly treated.

Mr. McCarthy

I desire to join with the members of all Parties in the House who have given a welcome to this Bill. I regard it as a splendid gesture of goodwill which is characteristic of the Minister and of the Government in their desire to do justice to those who were wounded or disabled, or in other ways made sacrifices in the cause of national freedom. It goes a long way towards removing many injustices. But there is one blot on the measure and I would appeal to the Minister and to the Government, in their generosity, to do their best to remove that defect. I advocate no new principle because the principle is already incorporated in a previous measure. I refer to the extension of pensions, in a limited way, to the widows and families of those who died as a result of wounds or disability incurred by reason of the sacrifices they made and the discomforts and trials they endured. Under existing legislation—and this new Bill makes no further provision—if a soldier, volunteer or old I.R.A. man, who was not married before 1928, happens to die, leaving a young and helpless family, no provision can be made for the family. While one such case of outstanding hardship or apparent injustice remains in any district, it is a reflection on the comrades of the man who has died, a defect in the ameliorative legislature and a reproach to the Legislature. I would ask the Minister to extend the date, 1928, to a far later date because, as Deputies are already aware, those who from 1916 to 1924 devoted all their efforts to the achievement of freedom for this country and took all the risks attendant on that great cause, were, in 1928, unable to settle down and get married. In most cases they had no steady employment and, certainly, during the years they spent on national service they had not the necessary finance to enable them to take on the responsibilities of establishing a home.

Therefore, I appeal to the Minister —I know his sympathies in the matter and I am sure he will reconsider it— to ensure that men who were unable to marry until a later stage in their lives should have this provision extended to them. The fact that a man received a wound or suffered disability is no reason why the further sacrifice should be imposed upon him that he should not found a home of his own, that he should remain for the rest of his life in isolation, dependent on his relatives and friends, living with them, perhaps, and seeking whatever comforts the world otherwise would give him.

That is the one defect in the Bill. In trying to remedy it, the Minister would have the sympathy of all sides of the House. This Bill will, perhaps, end, once and for all, the many measures that had to be introduced to deal with various aspects of cases as they appeared from time to time. I again welcome the general provisions of the Bill and, in particular, the extension of the provision, that was formerly granted to the 1916 men, to those who have certain service certificates or medals of membership which show that they served the cause of freedom. They were all comrades. This Bill goes a long way to provide for them in various ways and if the further extension that I recommend is made I am sure the last cause for serious complaint will have been removed.

Mr. Brennan

I should like to join with the Deputies on all sides of the House in congratulating the Minister on the introduction of this measure and, particularly, that portion of the Bill which will bring the 1923 Act into line with subsequent Acts, in so far as it relates to dependents of old I.R.A. men who died as a result of wounds prior to the passage of those Acts. I also welcome that portion of the Bill whereby the Minister intends to make a serious effort to deal fairly and justly with men discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis contracted as a result of service.

I should like to add my appeal to that made by Deputy T. O'Sullivan and Deputy McCarthy and to ask the Minister to reconsider the position in the case of a man who is in receipt of a wounds pension, who is a married man with a number of dependents and who dies as a result of wounds but, because he was not married before he received the wounds, his dependents are not provided for. A similar position obtains in the case of a man who received a pension in respect of disease contracted while on service. If a man who is in receipt of a disability pension is married and has a family, unless he contracted the marriage before the 1st October, 1928, his dependents are not entitled to a pension. Like Deputy McCarthy, I think that date is far too early. I maintain that it should not be mandatory, in the case of a man who received a wound in attempting to obtain the freedom of this country, that, for his dependents to qualify for a pension, he should have been married before the 1st October, 1928, and that otherwise his dependents will not receive the necessary help from the State that they should receive.

A man who received a wound between say 1916 and 1921, who was in receipt of a wound pension, and possibly was anxious to marry, but happened to be that type of individual who visualised the responsibility of doing so, might be influenced by the fact that, after a certain number of years of married life, when perhaps there were a number of children in his family, if he died his widow and children would be thrown on the rates. Perhaps a man in that position if he visualised his responsibility would not marry. A man who was prepared to risk his life in the struggle for the attainment of the freedom of this country, might have received a wound which would obtain him a pension, under conditions which would compel him to remain a Benedict. The same thing applies as far as disability pensions are concerned. I join with Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy McCarthy in appealing to the Minister to hold that wound pensions should not depend on the fact that a man had received a wound before his marriage. Neither should a disability pension be withheld from dependents following death. The date there should be extended to a later period. As Deputy O'Sullivan stated, the Minister has been generous in Section 14 and we all appreciate it. We appreciate the fact that that section recognises the services of the old I.R.A., or those who can claim service in the I.R.A. Under the section, if a man who became a member of the I.R.A. on April 1st, 1921, had continuous service until July 11th, 1921, he qualified for a service medal and he automatically comes under the section. That is a recognition of service in the I.R.A.

I should like, however, to point out what I consider to be an injustice that still remains. Going back to 1916, there were in the brigade to which I was attached a number of men who claimed 1916 service, who were out during Easter Week, but, unfortunately, were not able to prove the necessary qualifying service, and, therefore, did not receive a service certificate or the 1916 medal. There are only a few such men. It may be argued that they could have continued their service, and that if they had subsequent service, as far as the tan war is concerned, or even in the civil war period, they would qualify. In 1916 a certain number of men were old in years, but they had a good national spirit, and were prepared to take their chance. They did so in Enniscorthy. Some of them were arrested, but even that fact did not qualify them for the 1916 service certificate. Some of them were even sent to England, but that did not qualify them. In later years, during the tan war, not through any want of spirit on their part, but because they were getting on in years, they could not claim service with the I.R.A. These men are few in numbers and I maintain that, when they were prepared to risk their lives in 1916, they are as much entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of this Bill as those members of the I.R.A. who, perhaps, joined on the 31st March, 1921, and had service to July 11th, 1921, and qualified.

I ask the Minister to weigh the position of both types of men and the value of the services they gave. I do not wish to decry in any way men who came in on March 31st, 1921. I think any man who did so was a good man, but men who were prepared to go out in 1916 and take their chance and who, through no fault of their own, did not qualify for a service certificate, should be brought under Section 14 by some method. Between this and the Report Stage I ask the Minister to give the matter consideration.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister, in his opening statement, said that 350 men in the Army were found to be unfit because they suffered from tuberculosis and that 260 had got pensions. I wonder if those who are in their graves are included. Young men, married and single, went into the Army after being passed as medically fit by the Army authorities but, after a year or two, some were found to be medically unfit. I raised the matter in this House during another debate. Some of these men, before they were discharged, had to sign a form to the effect that they would not claim anything against the State. I think that is the greatest injustice of all, because, when these men went into the Army, they were fit. When discharged they were told that they had not contracted the disease in the Army. That is surely wrong. Either that or the doctor who passed them as fit on entry must have been wrong. A case was raised in this House by the late Deputy Corish, in June, 1945, relative to John J. Breen, 12 Macken Street, Wexford. He had been a member of the voluntary Defence Force and was discharged as medically unfit. Here is what Deputy Corish said, in part:—

"I came across a case in Wexford recently of a man who joined the Maritime Inscription Corps on the 6th November, 1942. When on manoeuvres, in May, 1944, he met with an accident which resulted in a compound fracture of the right leg. He was in hospital until July 7, 1944, and on crutches until December 5, of the same year. He was out of work during that period and received no wages. He has been offered 10/6 a week to cover the period from 13th January, 1945, to 31st August, 1947. This man had a good deal of expense following the accident, and I cannot understand how the Department came to the decision to pay him only 10/6 a week from January, 1945, seeing that the accident occurred as far back as May, 1944. Why is the period to the 13th January disregarded? This man was not eligible for work owing to the accident he met with on manoeuvres. I wish the Minister would give some idea of Government policy in cases of this kind."

I was in contact with the Minister myself on behalf of the widows of soldiers who are not in receipt of the full widows' pension. They are getting a pension of only 5/-. The Minister regretted that nothing could be done in their case. I hope that this Bill will serve the interests of widows and children of men who died from tuberculosis after leaving the Army. Some of them, from my own county, died in sanatoria and their widows and children are dependent on home assistance. That is a great injustice.

Deputy Brennan referred to the 1916 men. At the last by-election in Wexford, the men with genuine records who took their stand in 1916 had something to say to the people by whom they were let down. Men who took no part in 1916 but who came out to fight one another in the civil war got pensions simply because they belonged to a political Party, while others who went out in 1916 in the City of Dublin and Wexford were less fortunate. I tabled question on behalf of some of these men who were the first to wear the uniform of the Volunteers and who were turned down as persons to whom the Act did not apply. This Bill will require to effect considerable alterations in order to bring in those people. I knew some of the 1916 men who died in the county home in my county. They had a pension of 3/6 a week and, if they had to go to the labour exchange, that sum was deducted from them. Others who were "well in" with the officers got through. If you did not agree with the officers, you were turned down even if you were the best man in Ireland. If they had anything against you or did not see eye to eye with you, they would not give you a reference. They turned down some of the best of men. Enniscorthy and Dublin were the two main centres in the insurrection. Some men and women who took their part then and who were in jail for months, with consequent loss of health, have to live on home assistance to-day. When some of these 1916 men died, the funeral expenses were not met by the authorities although the green, white and orange flag was placed on their coffins and shots were fired over their graves. The widows and children were left on the waves of the world and had to depend on home assistance. Probably, the by-elections did good. They are waking things up and I trust that all these wrongs and injustices to bona fide persons will be rectified in the near future.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I join with the other members who have welcomed this Bill, especially Section 12 which deals with tubercular affections. On that, I want to ask the Minister a question: Would it be correct to say that provision is made in this Bill for the widow and children of an individual discharged from the Army who subsequently dies, as distinct from the provision made under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act? Happily, very few persons will come into that category but even if only one person was affected, there would be justification for covering the case in the Bill. I had a case of that type in mind and I should like to know whether it is covered. I associate myself with the plea made in connection with widows and dependents of officers who die in the service. I know of recent cases where officers died in the service and their dependents, being deprived by Army regulations of the gratuity which would otherwise be payable, found themselves in distressed circumstances. I believe that the Minister will be sympathetic to a relaxation of the regulations in that respect and will consider cases such as that in which resignation forms are tendered to an individual who may be on the point of death. That is obviously distressing, not only to the individual, who is signing his own death warrant, but to his relatives as well.

Since this is an Army Pensions Bill, perhaps the Ceann Comhairle will permit me to refer to a matter which might, perhaps, have been more relevant to the 1945 Act. The Act dealing with the Connaught Rangers provided for an abatement of pension in the case of persons in Government service. That abatement operates up to date, while relief has been afforded men serving in the Army to the extent, I understand, of complete remission up to £250. Only about a dozen individuals are affected, and I bring the matter to the Minister's notice in the hope that, if not now, in the near future, he will give attention to it.

Major de Valera

I cannot add much to the debate on this Bill, seeing that members seem to be unanimously in favour of it. One thing which I should like to mention goes to the form of the Bill rather than to the substance. Deputy Norton referred to the difficulty which Deputies have in understanding the provisions of such a Bill. The same thing occurred to myself. Whatever about the question of an explanatory paper, Deputies are confronted with a grave difficulty when sections are framed in the way in which Section 11 of this Bill is framed. It is, of course, from a legal point of view perfectly adequate but it makes it difficult for Deputies, who have to handle a number of these Bills in rapid succession, to appreciate the effect of a measure when they are simply told that something in a section of another Act is being deleted and that something else is being substituted instead. That involves a regular piece of research and makes it very difficult for people who believe that they are to secure certain rights under the Bill to determine what these rights are. Even trained lawyers whose business it is to make research into Acts of this nature, find it extremely difficult, especially when a whole code is built up, as a whole code is being built up, in reference to military pensions.

I shall not go into Committee points at this stage, but I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that it would be preferable, taking Section 11 as an example—and the remark applies to other sections also—that instead of presenting it as it reads here—"Subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1937 is hereby amended by the substitution for the words ‘twelve months after the date of the passing of this Act of the words and figures `before the 26th day of April, 1946'."—to take the relevant section of the 1937 Act and reprint it in toto with the amendments made. It would only mean a little extra paper and then the section repealed could appear in the Schedule of Repeals. I would suggest to the Minister that that would be a much more suitable way of amending a provision like that and then we should know what we were talking about. I admit that my remarks do not apply with quite the same force to sub-section (5) of Section 12. There it simply says that certain sections will apply in respect of pensions under the section. There you have simply to read up the sections named, but in the case of a section such as Section 11—and there are others in the Bill—I suggest to the Minister that it would be an improvement if legislation were presented to the House in the way I suggest.

As regards the remaining provisions of the Bill I have very little to add. These provisions do represent an advance although the Bill does not cater completely for the problems in respect of Army pensions that are outstanding, particularly with regard to what are regarded as normal pensions. This deals with disability pensions and it is an improvement and an advance that is welcomed generally.

In connection with Section 12, I should like to say that cases have come to our notice of people who have been genuinely knocked up with tuberculosis but in a way that cannot be directly linked up with the present provisions. These men are often destitute. During my short time in the House, I have had experience of a few cases of that sort. I think that a sympathetic administration of the provisions of Section 12 should cater for these cases and that, I think, is certainly a very fine provision on the part of the Minister.

The only point that arises is that in the administration of these Acts we should bear in mind the circumstances under which men contracted these diseases. It was not a case of normal ordinary State service. I am referring now to men who gave service during the emergency since 1939. It was not simply a case of ordinary service. It was a case where there was real danger to the country, where people took risks and joined the Army and in which the members of the Army took abnormal risks both to their health and to their circumstances of life, certain risks to their own financial circumstances. There was a risk on their side and, of course, also a risk, it must be realised, on the part of the authorities. The authorities had to risk exposing people because of that danger. If we cast our minds back to that time, I think the country will have been prepared to pay for that risk as the people were prepared to pay for other things. It was in circumstances such as those that these men were disabled and for that reason I think I am justified in recommending to the Minister a somewhat more liberal interpretation in regard to these claims. Shall I say a little more sympathetic consideration of the provisions of the Bill in regard to these men than might be warranted in the ordinary routine cases of State service under normal conditions?

Other matters to which I should like to refer would probably arise more appropriately on the Committee Stage but there is one matter which I almost forgot. There have been cases —and this refers particularly to old I.R.A. men—from time to time, where men have been excluded from the benefits of earlier pensions Acts by failure to comply with some technicality in regard to dates. Of course the legal view and the normal view— and the Minister can take no other view—is that there must be some rule if these Acts are to be properly administered. One rule must be to have a date within which all applications must be made, otherwise you cannot administer the Act. On the other hand, I have come across at least one case where people have claimed for disability arising from service which, if submitted in time, would have secured them the benefits of the earlier Acts. In fact, they failed to comply with the time requirement; they were late. In these cases, however, application was not made more or less from patriotic motives. The man felt that he would carry on and it was only after a certain time had expired that the disability came against him and prevented him earning a wage. I should like to see some type of provision inserted in the Bill that would enable the Minister to have some discretion in cases of that kind. I know at least one genuine case of the kind which has occurred. Other points which I should like to raise are more appropriate, as I say, to the Committee Stage and I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing them at any length here.

Mr. Commons

I do not intend to dwell at any great length on this Bill but the first thing I must say about it is to repeat what other Deputies have said, that it is a very complicated Bill. To peruse and understand it fully is a job that would strain the mind of any Deputy in this House. There are sections in it that we all welcome, especially those whose object it is to provide better treatment for the old I.R.A. men who gave service in times gone by. We must all admit that were it not for the sacrifices made by these men from 1916 onwards we would have no freedom and, I suppose, no Parliament here to-day. I am glad to see that even at this late stage—and it is a bit late; but better late than never—that some consideration is being given to them and that increased benefits and gratuities will be granted in certain cases to some of these individuals. I find that in my area—and other Deputies have made the same remark in regard to their districts—that a slight technicality in the making of an application has frequently cut out an applicant and has deprived him of privileges to which he was entitled.

Complaints have been made to me that, when junior officers and ordinary volunteers approached their senior officers, those senior officers were a bit slow in making the right and proper recommendations. However, although the scheme will be criticised—and there is no doubt that it deserves a certain amount of criticism—this Bill, which provides for people who have been wounded, and for the dependents of those who have died of wounds, must also get the praise which it deserves. In the world to-day there are so many wounded and war-weary soldiers, and so many nations have on their hands ex-servicemen who have been wounded, nerve-wrecked and shell-shocked, that we should be proud to be able to provide at least for those who have lost their health in the service of our own country. We were fortunate enough to avoid being forced into open battle, which would have left us with a larger number to provide for. At the present moment, the Irish people are inclined to look at the word "pension" with a certain amount of disfavour. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government gave pensions to a certain number of their own followers. Then the Fianna Fáil Government came along and gave pensions to a certain number of their followers. There is another section who, having followed one Party or the other, think that they deserve a pension too. Those people are inclined to grumble and say: "We did as much as so-and-so, but, because of the attitude of such-and-such an officer whose leanings were towards such a Party, our claims have not been allowed." Therefore, when this Act comes into operation, I should like the Minister to see to it that there is a thorough reexamination of all genuine cases.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that this Bill deals with disability, and not with the general question of pensions.

Mr. Commons

In the case of applications for disability pensions, too, I hope the Minister will see to it that those who think they have a genuine claim will receive consideration. On the other hand, it is desirable that the bill which will be presented to the people should be kept down to the minimum because, unfortunately, when the burden of taxation is already so high, the people will look on a pension scheme as adding to that burden. That may be a narrow-minded view, but we must all agree that that is so.

I know one case in which a young man who was discharged from the Army because he was medically unfit did not ask for a pension. All he asked was that he be afforded a chance to earn his livelihood by being allowed a permit to drive a hackney vehicle. Yesterday, I was in touch with the Department of Supplies and found that he had been refused that permit on the grounds that he was discharged from the Army prior to the date which would entitle him to that concession. I would ask the Minister to take the broad view in regard to all those matters, and to do his best to satisfy those who feel that they have a genuine grievance. I hope all those who claim disability pensions, and those who have been disbanded from the Army as being medically unfit, will get the consideration they deserve. In the case of the old members of the I.R.A., the Bill may be regarded as having come 20 years too late, but it is better that it should come now than not at all.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

First of all, I want to offer my regrets that a White Paper was not issued in respect of this Bill. If the matter had been brought to my attention after the Bill was issued, I might, if time allowed, have endeavoured to accede to that request. Secondly, I want to say that I sympathise with every Deputy who has had to wrestle with this Bill, which in the main is a Bill by reference. I can assure you that it has caused me much more perturbation than it has caused to any other Deputy in the House. Deputy Norton asked about wet towels. Well, I will not say that I had wet towels around my head, but perhaps I might have liked to have had them when endeavouring to elucidate some of the points of reference in this particular Bill. However, I want to say this, and I am sure the House realises it just as well as I do—Deputy de Valera, who himself is a trained lawyer, will agree with me—that when we issue what we think we require, we use the form which the ordinary man in the street uses; that is, we put it into the language used by the ordinary man in the street to convey his thoughts to his fellow-man. But the lawyer, of course, has a different outlook on the matter. He wants to secure beyond yea or nay that what he puts into the Bill can be interpreted only in a certain fashion. That fashion is a principle which, I suppose, is embodied in all legal interpretations of language. So I just want to say, without wishing to run away from my responsibilities, that the matter of the drafting of a Bill is something which neither the Minister nor the Department has any responsibility for, after they have given what they think they require to the Parliamentary draftsman.

With regard to the statement which I made here in the initial stages of this debate, we went into the composition of that statement at very great length, and we went to very great pains to have it made as clear as it could possibly be made so that Deputies, when they would be referring to it later on in the Official Debates, would have little or no difficulty in interpreting the Bill in the simple language in which we ourselves would have liked to have put it. So I can only suggest to the members of the House that if they refer to the Official Debates when they are issued in the course of a couple of days, they will have there a clear exposition of this piece of legislation, which will, perhaps, be even more valuable from the point of view of information than the White Paper itself would have been. I know that the White Paper would have been more valuable if it had been in the hands of Deputies beforehand, but that is the only explanation I can make in regard to the many references to the difficulty of interpreting the exact meaning of the Bill. For instance, reference was made by Deputy de Valera to Section 11. Section 11 has a complicated form of words. It says:

Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1937 is hereby amended by the substitution, for the words "twelve months after the date of the passing of this Act", of the words and figures "before the 26th day of April, 1946".

Now, interpreted in ordinary language that means that this extends the date of application for wound pensions to twelve months from the date of the soldier's discharge. That is all it means, but that, however, is the way in which the legal draftsman feels that he must put it, and so, no doubt, it is necessary.

There were several expressions of opinion in respect to the necessity for consolidating all these pensions Acts. I have no doubt that in the course of time there will be a consolidation, not alone of these pensions Acts, which, in themselves, are very difficult and very complicated pieces of legislation, but of practically all legislation which passes through this House.

Reference was made also to the fact that we have to bring in here, from year to year, a continuation Bill—I think it is called the Army Continuation Bill—which empowers us to carry on the Army from year to year. We have been doing that over a long number of years, the reason being that we have not got a permanent Act. As a matter of fact, the permanent Act has been practically completed. It was practically completed at the beginning of the war and, as a matter of fact, it was actually introduced by my predecessor, but the Second Reading was never taken for the simple reason that the emergency intervened. That particular document is now to a very large extent obsolete by reason of the fact that so many changes have taken place in the course of the emergency years, and very much of that legislation will have to be altered and changed about. I do hope, however, that in the course of time we shall be able to comply with the request which was made about consolidating various Acts, especially these pensions Acts.

Deputy O'Higgins made reference to the Disability Board, the Military Pensions Board. That board consists of a chairman, who is a civilian. There is a representative of the Army on it, a military officer, and there is another, a civilian doctor, a man with a fine national record in former years. These are the people who investigate the cases which come before them, and as far as I am aware there is no kind of dissension such as would appear to have been suggested by Deputy O'Higgins. As far as I am led to believe, anyhow, the cases are usually agreed upon by a majority report, and if there is any difficulty, even in respect to the majority report—a matter about which, perhaps, there might be some doubt—the matter is referred to me. So that I am brought into it from the point of view, perhaps, of deciding a particularly knotty issue. We even go further than that. If there is any doubt in the minds of the medical men from the point of view of the particular disease, they are empowered to, and in fact do, engage specialists who come in and examine the particular case and are in the happy position of being able to give a completely unbiased and neutral point of view. Accordingly, I cannot see that any of these cases are dealt with in any particular fashion that could be regarded in any respect as being biased decisions. The members of that particular board, like all persons who have to make decisions of that kind, are bound by certain regulations and certain terms of reference. We all know that if they go outside these regulations or these terms of reference there is going to be difficulty and, perhaps, trouble for themselves. I think—although I cannot say it with any assurance—that they could possibly be surcharged for any undue financial expenditure that might result from their particular decisions. So that they must be careful. They just cannot allow their sympathy or their sentiment to be the main guide. We have not reached, and I do not believe we ever will reach, that kind of Utopia which the Deputies in this House would seem to like to have existing. I say that by reason of the expressions of opinion which were made here regarding their desire to have much more generous treatment meted out to applicants than is meted out. There will always be the position where there will be a group of individuals bound by these regulations and bound by laws, and they can only come to their decisions within the particular restrictions by which they are bound.

The Bill has been generally welcomed and I am glad that it has been welcomed. I feel sure that it will bring a lot of relief and amelioration of suffering to a number of people, anyhow. But the position in respect to the men who were not married before they received the wound is one of very great difficulty. It is not such a simple matter as might be imagined from the discussion this evening. There is no doubt whatever that, where a married man was wounded while taking part in the fight for freedom, his life partner will be awarded an allowance in respect of his death as a result of that wound, whenever that death may occur. But it would be very difficult to bring in an individual who, perhaps, marries very many years after the particular exploit in which he was wounded. So far as I am given to understand, anyhow, the idea behind that particular piece of legislation was to ensure that the man and his life partner would not suffer as a result of his wound. If the man was not married and, years afterwards, undertook the contract of marriage, that was a matter for himself. It was a matter to which, I am sure, he gave ample consideration before he entered into the bond. But he must have been aware, and I am sure he was aware, of what his position would be in respect of this Act. I am presuming now that the man had a pension for the wound that he had received. He must have been well aware that that wound pension would die with him. Therefore he was fully aware of the fact that this particular pension would not be carried over to his widow.

Then there is the further complication that there are many other Acts involved in any action which we might take in respect to amending this Bill in the manner suggested this evening. I understand that the Workmen's Compensation Act would be involved, and, if the Workmen's Compensation Act was involved in any amendment which we might make in this particular Bill arising out of the discussion here to-day, while only a few persons might be involved under this particular Bill, many thousands might be involved arising out of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I undertake to have the matter examined. I am only mentioning these points to show the difficulty. But, while I am undertaking to have the matter examined again, I am not holding out any hope that anything will be done. If I can see any way in which the matter can be dealt with, I can assure the Deputies who have spoken that I have just as much sympathy with the object which they have in view as they themselves have.

In regard to Section 12, which deals with the bringing in of cases of tuberculosis which were aggravated by service, fears were expressed, and perhaps rightly expressed, in regard to the high degree of disablement which is included in the section. The section states:—

"such person is at the date of his examination by the Army Pensions Board suffering from a disablement (not being less in degree than eighty per cent.) due to tuberculosis aggravated, accelerated or excited by..."

I want to say that, if my wishes are carried out by the board, and I shall put these wishes in the instructions, the fact that a man has tuberculosis at all will qualify him immediately for full pension. The idea behind that is that whatever hope there may be for any man suffering from any degree of tuberculosis rests on the fact that he will get that amount of quiet and freedom from worry which the 100 per cent. pension can give him.

Dr. O'Higgins

Is it not right to say that the board have always assessed tuberculosis cases as over 80 per cent?

Mr. Traynor

There have been fears expressed——

Dr. O'Higgins

They always count it over 80 per cent.

Mr. Traynor

——as the result of the inclusion of the words "eighty per cent." I am assuring the House that the interpretation will be a generous interpretation and that the individuals who are now suffering from tuberculosis aggravated by service will get that type of help which, we hope, will enable them to recover completely in the course of time. I should also like to make reference to the fact—I gave the figures when I was making my opening statement—that about 350 men have been, to date, discharged from the Army as being medically unfit owing to suffering from one form or another of tuberculosis. It was suggested at one time in this House that tuberculosis was rampant in the Army. I want to take advantage of the Bill we are discussing to say that the total number discharged amounted to only 350, and, in answer to the suggestion by Deputy O'Higgins that there could be a more generous interpretation given by the board, to say that, of these 350 men, 260 have been awarded pensions, leaving only these 90 who were regarded as not entitled to the pension, since the disease was not attributable to service. These 90 men are being brought in now and any others who may desire to apply, who may be suffering from it between now and the end of the military emergency period. Deputy O'Higgins also spoke about the "soldier's friend", and I was somewhat amused to hear him say there was no person to bring these cases to the attention of the Minister. There may not be any official soldier's friend, but there are 138 Deputies, many of whom frequently write to me.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister, apparently, misunderstood me. I was not belittling the efforts of any Deputy, but was pointing out that it should not be the function of Deputies, that there should be somebody in the Department whose duty it would be to bring to the Minister's attention cases where there appeared to be an unjust decision. Then Deputies would not be bothered.

Mr. Traynor

That may, or may not be so, and I would not be prepared to argue on that point. The fact remains, nevertheless, that Deputies appear to me to take an interest in the welfare of such men.

Dr. O'Higgins

But they cannot take a knowledgeable interest, when they have not the file available, with the documents, and case-sheets, the reports, the X-ray photographs, etc.

Mr. Traynor

No, but the fact remains that, when it is brought to my attention or the attention of the Department, it is also brought to the attention of the board, and the case is usually reopened. On occasions, that has resulted in an actual addition to the pension or a reversal of a former decision. I am not saying that Deputies should or should not take that particular interest, or that there should or should not be the soldier's friend the Deputy suggests. However, we have in the Department of Defence a special section—set up, as a matter of fact, as a result of discussions with the Deputy himself, during the period of the Defence Conference—and that section is functioning now. It has been added to, very largely as a result of the recent large-scale demobilisation of men; and it is doing very fine work. It is dealing even with this type of case, and men are going there now and discussing their problems with the officers in that particular section; and that is all to the good. The men from the country still use the Deputy for the purpose of having their cases brought to the attention of the Department of the Minister.

Deputy T. O'Sullivan seemed to be under the impression that men who were suffering from cardiac disease were not entitled to apply under this particular section. They are: any disability that a man may suffer from as a result of his military service makes him entitled to apply.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister gave us the number of tuberculosis cases who had applied, and the number who got pensions. Would he have available the number of heart cases who applied, and the number of those who got pensions?

Mr. Traynor

I do not believe that information would be available here at the moment. We were not expecting to deal with disability cases in general, as it is only the tuberculosis cases which come under this particular Bill. Deputy Brennan spoke about 1916 men who were not entitled to pensions. All I can say is that, if they did not get pensions in respect of 1916, they can hardly be described as 1916 men. We can only deal with those individuals who received certificates for that particular service. The same thing applies in the case of the other service. Every individual who gave service of any kind, who was a member of the Forces for the period specified in the Bill, will be entitled now to come in under Section 14. As has been remarked here by some Deputies, there should not be, in future, any reason why any man should die in any county home or place of that kind, since any man who becomes incapable of self-support is now enabled to secure £78, if he is single, or £97 10s. If he is married, which at least will give him a frugal way of life, if it does nothing else.

I think I have dealt with most of the points raised. I am grateful for the kindly references which were made by practically all Deputies to the various sections of the Bill which provide improvements both for the ex-members of the Army and for the Old I.R.A. men.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

May I ask the Minister if, in Section 14, paragraph (aa), he will extend the time for making application for service medals? The second part of that paragraph refers to the Minister being satisfied that the medal was duly awarded on application made before 1st January, 1946.

Mr. Traynor

Yes, I will see that that is extended. We can extend it for a year, and make it 1st January, 1947.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 14th February.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 7 Feb 1946