asked the Minister for Defence if he will state the number of persons, in County Galway, who applied for military service pensions in respect of service in 1916; and how many such persons were granted pensions prior to 1945.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Military Service Pensions in Galway.
I am not in a position to state the number of persons in County Galway who applied for military service pensions in respect of service in 1916, and it would not be practicable to obtain the information. The Referee completed 222 favourable reports, qualifying for pension, in respect of applicants under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, whose military service consisted of or included service in County Galway in Easter Week.
asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that William Corcoran (reference number 9368) applied for a military service certificate in respect of service in 1916 only in County Galway, and was refused such certificate; also that, following an appeal to the High Court, his case was reviewed and a certificate granted; further that, in giving judgment, the High Court judges expressed disagreement with the Referee's interpretation of "active service", and that, as a result of this judgment, a number of applicants, having similar service in County Galway have been awarded certificates; and whether, in view of this decision, he is prepared to review the cases of all applicants in the County Galway who have been refused pensions owing to a misinterpretation by the Referee of the definition of "active service".
The facts are as stated in the first part of the Deputy's question. In regard to the second part of the question, one of the three High Court judges in giving judgment expressed himself as not being in agreement with the Referee's interpretation of the expression "active service" but added that it was immaterial to the determination of the matter before the court. In the course of his judgement, the judge stated that the Referee cannot be compelled by mandamus to decide in any particular way the question of what amounts to active service, since the Act does not define active service. The discretion as to interpreting the expression is vested in the Referee, and the judge stated that he appeared to be exercising his discretion judicially. In eight other cases the Referee's original findings, that the applicants were not persons to whom the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, applies, were quashed by the High Court. These cases were then referred to the Referee for further reports, in consequence of which the Referee has furnished new reports qualifying for pension.
In regard to the concluding portion of the question, I would refer the Deputy to the terms of Section 5 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1945. Having regard to the terms of that section, I am no longer in a position to request the Referee to review any reports made by him.
The Minister states that only one of the three High Court judges disagreed with the decision of the Referee?
That is so.
Nevertheless, all three judges, Mr. Justice Maguire, Mr. Justice Davitt and Mr. Justice Haugh, in the High Court reversed the decision. How, then, can the Minister say that only one of the three disagreed? I have a report, a copy of which I have sent to the Minister, which states that the three judges completely disagreed with the Referee's decision. This really is the matter I want to put to the Minister. According to the Referee's report, some 600 to 700 people in County Galway took part in the 1916 Rising. It now appears that 222 of these were granted service certificates entitling them to a pension. Eight of those who were turned down went to the High Court and succeeded. There are still about 400 who have as good a case as the eight who were lucky enough to go before the High Court. Is the Minister now going to give an opportunity to these 400 people to qualify or to make application for a pension? Why not do it? I have here a letter from one of them——
The Deputy may not read letters at Question Time.
This is from a 1916 man who is now going around asking someone to give him the price of tobacco. Will the Minister, in view of the fact that the High Court quashed the Referee's decision in eight cases, give an opportunity to the other 300 or 400 people to put their case forward?
The individuals who went before the High Court and had the Referee's decision quashed in their favour had their cases reheard and, I presume, they produced additional evidence which was sufficient to convince the Referee that they were persons to whom the Act applied.
To convince the High Court. The matter went before High Court judges.
They had to convince the Referee. If the Referee is not convinced, the High Court judges could not give them anything.
It appears from what they told me——
The High Court judges referred the cases to the Referee for rehearing.
How do the other applicants stand in relation——
The Deputy asked me to make a statement. If he does not wish to hear it I will sit down.
You are quite welcome to make it. That is why I put the question.
As I pointed out, the Referee having reheard the cases and probably having additional evidence submitted to him, reversed the decision. He was quite right in reversing the decision if in his opinion there was additional evidence on which he was satisfied that these men had 1916 service. Every one of the individuals in whom the Deputy is interested had an opportunity of appearing before the Referee and of convincing the Referee, if he had the evidence to convince him, that he was also a person to whom the Act applied. They failed to convince the Referee and failed to secure service. I should mention that, in spite of what the learned judge may have said with regard to the case, three judges acting as Referees have given the same interpretation to "active service" as the original judge. So far as I can find out, there has been no differentiation in the manner of deciding what is and what is not "active service" since the 1934 Act first operated.
Will the Minister not agree that these eight persons were turned down as people who were not entitled to certificates according to the Referee?
The Deputy is now repeating his question.
The Minister did not answer my supplementary question and that is why I have to repeat it. These people went to the High Court and three High Court judges stated that they were entitled to a certificate. The cases came back to the Referee and these eight people got pensions. What about the 300 or 400 people who have the very same case as these eight people? Why not give them an opportunity, instead of having them at the county home and—some of them— cadging the price of tobacco?
I should say that there were something like 500 to 700 cases turned down which were reheard on appeal.
From Galway?
All over the country.
It is in Galway I am interested.
I am interested in the country as a whole and not particularly in Galway. I am speaking of the number of appeals which were reheard after being turned down originally. On the production of new evidence, these 500, 600 or 700 cases were awarded service after having satisfied the Referee in the second instance that they had service by reason of the evidence they produced.
But the eight people who went before the court had no additional evidence to offer.
Question No. 33.
It is a nice way out of it.
Will the Minister introduce amending legislation to clear up the doubt that exists?
asked the Minister for Defence whether, in view of the particular circumstances of the case of William Corcoran (reference No. 9368), an applicant for a military service pension, he is prepared to forgo the sum of £144 costs awarded against Mr. Corcoran, in respect of mandamus proceedings taken by the latter to establish his claim to a pension.
I am not prepared to recommend to the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the Law Charges Vote, that payment of these costs should be waived.
In view of the fact that this man Corcoran went before the High Court and won his case, surely it is not too much to ask the Minister to forgo the expenses, amounting to £144, because it merely means wiping out all that this man will get for the rest of his life. Will the Minister not answer that question?
I have given the Deputy the answer and I am not changing it.
It is very nice. The 1916 men are now in the county homes looking for the price of tobacco.