I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to amend and extend the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1943.
In Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1946—Money Resolution.
I understand that one of the charges to be made on the Exchequer in connection with this Bill is for the provision of funds for the dependents of soldiers discharged suffering from tuberculosis. Will the widows and orphans of men who die from tuberculosis, having been discharged from the Army on account of tuberculosis prior to the passing of this Bill, be entitled to any benefit which can be charged on the Exchequer in pursuance of this Resolution?
The position is that if the individual concerned is in receipt of a married pension, the widow and the children will be entitled to the amount specified in the Bill.
Only those who are enjoying pensions under previous legislation will get the additional benefit from the widows' and orphans' fund under this Bill?
I am not quite clear as to what the Deputy is getting at. What I want to make clear, however, is that, if the individual who comes under this Bill is in receipt of a married pension at the time of his death, his widow and children will be entitled to the allowance set out in the Bill. There are similar sections in other Acts which make different provisions, not perhaps the same type of provision as this. But, so far as this Bill is concerned, a widow who was married to an individual when he was serving in the Army and developed this disease will be entitled. But, if the widow was not married to the man when he contracted the disease, she will not be entitled to it.
If a soldier suffering from the disease was discharged from the Army prior to the passing of this Bill and if he had not been entitled to any disability pension, is there any provision in this Bill that when he has died his widow and orphans would have a claim on the Army? Or, is the test of the widows' and orphans' claim the validity of the deceased soldier's claim? If the deceased soldier had no claim, the widow and orphans have no claim now? Is that the position?
Yes.
Will the Minister say whether the means test will be enforced under this Bill? Are they going to take from the widow her right to claim a widow's and orphan's pension? Which is the greater, the widows' and orphans' pensions which are now in operation or the scheme which he proposes to put into operation? Will one clash with the other? Will children's allowances be taken into consideration, or will the Minister extend the scheme so that they will not be taken into consideration when giving pensions under this new measure?
The widow will be entitled to not less than she would be entitled to receive as marriage allowance before death if the combined amount of the widow's pension, plus the Army pension, is taken into consideration. She will not receive less than the total amount of marriage allowance.
What I want to get at is this: are we giving something now which is only replacing the ordinary widows' and orphans' pension? If they have the children's allowance, will that be taken into consideration when assessing the pension to be paid to the widow and orphans of a soldier who dies from tuberculosis? Are you going to give them anything additional under this Bill or will you deprive them, through this Bill, of anything that they might have got through other channels?
We are not depriving anybody of anything.
Are you going to give them more than they would get under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act now in operation?
Yes.
Will it improve their position?
Yes.
Will such a pension be paid to the parents of a soldier who died as a result of tuberculosis?
Yes. If the Deputy reads the particular section of the Bill he will see in what manner the dependents of a soldier will receive these amounts. If the Deputy will look up my statement on the Second Reading, which was a very explanatory statement, he will see that in some cases there may be several dependents; in other cases there can be only one dependent; but in all cases there is provision made for one or more dependents.
I understand that the soldier's death need not necessarily be from tuberculosis, but may be from any other disease contracted during service in the Army.
Disease, in general.
If an unmarried soldier receiving a pension gets married afterwards are the children entitled to any allowance?
No, he must have been married.
If a single man who was in receipt of a disability got married afterwards will his dependents be entitled to any allowance?
No, he must have been in receipt of a married pension.
The Minister's Department had before it the case of parents in my constituency who applied for some consideration on the death of their son under tragic circumstances at Dungarvan while serving in the forces. Will the Minister say if the Bill covers that case?
I am not too sure about that. I think I mentioned when that matter was raised, possibly by a question asked by the Deputy, that the man's death was due to a fracas outside his military duty. I think I informed the Deputy at the time that it did not come within the scope of the Act.
But he was in the Army at the time of his death.
Would the Bill cover a case of accidental shooting in the course of rifle practice, etc.? Will the parents get compensation in a case of that kind? I know of a particular instance which occurred in Galway recently.
If dependency can be proved, yes; if not, no.
Perhaps, if I give one example, the Minister might be able to answer a question. A soldier in whose case tuberculosis developed while he was in the Army, due to an accident which he had, contested this case and went before a court of medical referees and was turned down. I have every reason to believe he was turned down because, in his evidence before the board, he mentioned that he had a deformity or disability on his back. I wonder how he got into the Army? How was it that this was not detected when he was making application to join? Would that person be entitled to a pension from the date of his accident?
He would, if his service aggravated it.
Is the Deputy suggesting that the accident arose out of service?
Mr. Corish
Yes.
Well, we can have that examined, but I suppose that claim was not made. I understand that, in the case the Deputy has in mind, the individual was claiming for tuberculosis. Is not that correct?
Mr. Corish
Yes, aggravated as the result of an accident.
And that they discovered as a result of the examination that he also suffered from a disability which was brought about as a result of an accident. If the accident was brought about as a result of military service, he could have put in a claim for the injury on those grounds alone. If, however, tuberculosis was not then regarded as being attributable to service, he could have his case reexamined now, as a result of the amendment we are bringing in in this Bill. Under this Bill, it is not necessary to prove that the disease was attributable to service, if it was aggravated by service, and it is quite possible that a case of that kind would come under it. If it can be proved it was aggravated, it comes within the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Corish
But only from the date on which the Bill comes into operation?
Yes, the operative date.
I would prefer that the Minister include in this Bill cases where soldiers lost their lives in Army service. That would cover the case I referred to.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.