Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 16 Apr 1948

Vol. 110 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £516,734 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1949, for Wound and Disability Pensions, Further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932, No. 15 of 1937, No. 2 of 1941, No. 14 of 1943, and No. 3 of 1946); Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, No. 43 of 1934, No. 33 of 1938, No. 5 of 1944, and Nos. 11 and 34 of 1945); Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936); Payments in respect of Compensation for Members of the Local Defence Force (No. 19 of 1946); and for sundry contributions and expenses in respect thereof, etc.

The sum of £775,100 set out in the Army Pensions Vote represents the estimated cost for the financial year, 1948/49, of certain pensions, allowances and gratuities authorised by various statutes and schemes passed or confirmed from time to time by the Oireachtas during the past 25 years. These statutes and schemes are 22 in number, seven pertaining to Army pensions, seven to military service pensions, two to Defence Force pension, one to the Connaught Rangers, three to Defence Force pensions schemes and two schemes to the Local Defence Force. It is not, therefore, possible to increase or decrease the amounts of pensions, allowances or gratuities payable without an alteration by the Oireachtas of the statutes or schemes passed or confirmed by both Houses.

The 13 subheads set out in detail how the total sum of £775,100 is made up, but it may not be amiss to summarise in brief those details. Sub-heads A and B deal with the Army Pensions Board and its civilian staff. The board itself is a statutory body set up at first by the Army Pensions Act of 1927 and continued by subsequent Army Pensions Acts. It comprises two medical doctors and a civilian chairman without medical qualifications, and its function is to determine on medical evidence the claims of applicants by assessing their degree of disablement and its findings are deemed by the 1937 Act "to be final and conclusive and binding on all persons and tribunals whatsoever." The total under these sub-heads for salaries, wages, allowances and expenses of the board and its staff is estimated at £4,553 during this financial year. During the past 11 months the board has dealt with 1,351 cases. Awards were made in 1,063 cases, and 288 claims were rejected.

Sub-head C deals with the pensions and gratuities in respect of wounds and disease payable under the Army Pensions Acts of 1923, 1927, 1932, 1937, 1941, 1943 and 1946. Under these Acts there are already under payment 1,599 pensions at a cost of £132,353, and we anticipate that another 95 will qualify during the year, costing £9,805. Time is taking its toll of our pensioners, and during the past year no less than 81 died. Allowing for a similar number of deaths during the present year, the charge in respect of the 95 new pensions will not be £9,805, but £4,347. The sub-head also provides a sum of £600 in respect of wound gratuities payable to persons whose total disablement in respect of wound or injury does not reach the required minimum of 20 per cent. for pension purposes. The total charge of sub-head C is £137,300. I may mention that at the end of February, 1948, the Army Pensions Board had in hands 48 claims from persons who are claiming pensions for disablement alleged to have been incurred during the emergency period. The most of these cases are from persons who were apparently fit when leaving the Army, but broke down physically shortly after their retirement or discharge. It may, therefore, be said that these claims are an aftermath of the emergency period, but should gradually diminish with the passage of time.

When persons in receipt of wound or disability pensions die, their dependents, under certain conditions, qualify for pensions—technically called allowances—or gratuities, and these are provided for under sub-head D. The governing statutes here are practically the same as the Army Pensions Acts. There are already in receipt of these allowances 245 widows, 316 children and 87 dependents of unmarried deceased personnel—a total of 648 at a cost of £19,861. The present Estimate provides for 146 new allowances during the present year at a cost of £2,700, but again allowing for deaths—of which there were 14 in the past year—the new charge will be reduced by £386 to £2,314, giving a nett charge of £22,175. To this must be added £300 for educational expenses and £1,825 for gratuities payable under the 1946 Act to the partial dependents of unmarried deceased personnel, under the 1932 Act to certain widows of members of the I.R.A. and under the 1927 Act to widows who remarry. The total charge, therefore, under this sub-head is £24,300.

Sub-head E provides £470 for surgical and medical appliances for wound pensioners and sub-head F £3,200 to cover the cost of maintaining mainly in St. Bricin's Hospital persons applying for pensions and gratuities under the various Army Pensions Acts. Here it may be well to point out that the Acts allow treatment or maintenance for the following three classes only:—(1) final wound pensioners who need an alteration or renewal of their medical or surgical appliances, such as artificial limbs; (2) temporary wound or disability pensioners whose awards have expired or who appeal for an increase in pension on the grounds that their condition has worsened; (3) applicants for pensions or special allowances while their claims are being investigated by the Army Pensions Board. It will be seen, therefore, that generally speaking, the Acts contain no provision for treating persons in receipt of final pensions or of special allowances.

Sub-head G deals with the pensions granted under the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924 and 1934. There are at present charged to the Vote 13,868 awards at a cost of £423,516 and provision is made during the current year for 33 new pensions. These will cost £1,775. Here it may be noted that there are 186 awards under the 1934 Act in which service certificates have issued but the pensions remain unclaimed. These cost £2,966 a year and the arrears to date amount to £40,036. A sum of only £2,320 is included in the present Estimate to cover the cost of the arrears, but when allowance is made for deaths—of which there were 147 during the past year—the nett additional new charge is only £1,608. Deductions of £28,924 in respect of abatements reduce the charge to the sub-head from £425,124 to £396,200.

Here it may be mentioned that the Referee and Advisory Committee appointed to administer the 1934 Act completed their work and ceased to function on 31st July, 1947. The 33 new pensions are not, therefore, awards under the 1934 Act but under the 1924 Act and they relate to officers, N.C.O.s and men who were awarded service certificates under the 1924 Act, but whose pensions do not begin to operate until they have retired or been discharged from the forces.

Sub-head H relates to pensions granted in respect of service in the Army under various Defence Force (pensions) schemes made between 1937 and 1947. At present 226 officers, 769 other ranks, and 70 dependents of deceased officers are in receipt of such pensions at a cost of £115,013. The Estimate provides new pensions for 45 officers, 274 other ranks, 13 dependents of deceased officers and six members of the Army nursing service. The total gross cost will be £23,941, but allowing £362 for casualties the nett charge will be £23,579. Gratuities, as distinct from pensions, to the extent of £19,147 are also included in this sub-head. The amount is made up as follows: married gratuities for 20 officers, £9,180; short service gratuities for eight officers, £1,320; short service gratuities for 322 other ranks, £8,147; short service gratuities for nurses, £500; total, £19,147. Hence, between pensions at £138,592 and gratuities at £19,147, the gross charge is £157,739, but this is reduced to £154,600 by abatements of £3,139 in respect of public employment and disability pensions.

Sub-heads I at £5,000 and J at £1,200 deal, like sub-heads E and F, mainly with the work of the Army Pensions Board, because the former deals with expenses of applicants and witnesses attending for examination before the board, and the main charge against sub-head J relates to the fees paid to pensions medical officers who examine applicants locally and submit their reports on the claimants' condition to the board. During the past 11 months no less than 380 cases have been examined locally in such manner, and, in passing, I should like to pay a tribute to the invaluable help afforded to the administration of the Acts by the care and skill of these medical officers.

The service and disability pensions for the Connaught Rangers are covered by sub-head K. It will be noticed that there is a reduction of £27 in the sub-head, and that is due to the death of one of the pensioners during the year. In connection with this subject, I might mention that the reduced abatement clauses provided for military service pensions by the Act of 1945 does not apply to the Connaught Rangers. It is hoped, however, to remedy that defect in the near future, and a Bill is being prepared to that effect.

As regards the Local Defence Force (sub-head L), we are providing for 45 cases at a cost of £2,313, together with £130 for incidental expenses. Deducting abatements of £113 in respect of national health insurance, the nett charge to the sub-head is £2,330.

The last sub-head M deals with an ever-increasing charge in respect of special allowances awarded to persons who are incapable of self-support by reason of old age or of permanent infirmity of mind or body and who are in possession of medals either awarded for pensionable service or for membership of the I.R.A. for three months continuously prior to 11th July, 1921. To date there have been 2,144 claims for such allowances and of that number 683 have succeeded, 882 have been rejected and 579 are in one or another stage of investigation. Looking at the matter from the angle of the Army Pensions Board, the number of cases dealt with up to the end of February, 1948, was 615, of which 344 succeeded and 271 were unsuccessful. The present estimate was framed on the basis of 439 allowances on payment costing £27,049 and of 349 new cases at a cost of £18,618 or allowing for deaths—of which there were 20 during the year—at a cost of £17,851. In this connection I may mention that in the near future legislation will be introduced extending the date of application for these special allowances.

The details of the Estimate may be summarised thus:—cost of administration, £14,853; 17,698 awards already made, £721,152; 961 new awards, £49,699; gratuities, £21,572; gross total, £807,276; less abatements, £32,176; nett total, £775,100.

Mr. Davin

I think it can be safely said, without any reference to Party affiliations, that there is a general feeling that the question of dealing with applications for pensions, whether disability or service pensions, should be brought to an end at the earliest possible date. That, however, should not mean that deserving applicants, who have not up to the present received fair treatment and consideration, should be ignored or that their applications should not be dealt with by those who have the responsibility of taking a final decision. No matter what may be said to the contrary, there is a feeling in many parts of the country—I am not giving it as my personal opinion, because I could not prove it, but I say this to the present Minister and his predecessors—that this question of the decision in connection with the applications for military pensions has a very definite bearing upon the political outlook of the applicants. That does not now apply, and I hope that Deputy Traynor will not take it that I am making that statement with reference to the period of his administration or with regard to himself personally. I think that feeling will prevail as long as there is consideration being given to applications of this kind. Surely after a period of 24 or 25 years it ought to be possible, in the interests of the individuals and of the taxpayers, to bring this whole matter to a final conclusion.

I sympathise with the present Minister in taking over the job at this particular period, because when a new Minister or a new Government comes into office, just in the same way as when new Deputies come into this House, they get all the old cases which have been put before their predecessors, either in office as Ministers or in the representation of constituencies as Deputies. For that reason, as well as other reasons, I am sure the Minister will use his influence with the members of his Department and with the Military Service Pensions Board and other boards to get outstanding cases brought to finality at an early date.

During this week questions were raised by Deputies in connection with the administration of the military service pensions side of the Department. The Minister informed me, in reply to supplementary questions, that even though additional evidence of a convincing character is produced to him, that, under the law as it stands, there is no power to review such cases. I hope that will be put right. Surely it is a ridiculous state of affairs that an army officer, an Old I.R.A. man, can be accepted as a suitable and satisfactory person to certify for the payment of pension to an old soldier who served under him, and yet that the individual whose certificate is accepted cannot himself qualify for the payment of pension. There is something radically wrong when cases of that sort can occur. I am assured that there are individual officers who are satisfied that their own applications for payment of pension were not accepted because they were not associated with the Party in power at the time their applications were made.

I know of a Wexford case where the applicant was an Old I.R.A. man. He is a well-known man who was prominent in the G.A.A., the I.R.A., the Gaelic League, and in every other movement, and who was out in 1916. It was not questioned by the Military Service Pensions Board or by the Minister or anybody else that he was out. He had new evidence produced in connection with his case by the Irish Minister in Washington, who served with him in the Old I.R.A., and notwithstanding that, Deputy Traynor and the Party who have gone out of power refused to review his case. I could quote other cases of the same kind. The Minister, I know, would not question the credentials or the past history of the present Irish Minister in Washington. The Minister quoted in the House in the present week the reasons why such glaring cases would not and could not be reviewed. If the law is going to be amended, I hope it will be in such a way that cases such as I have mentioned can be reviewed.

There are, of course, innumerable cases and the position in regard to them is a most difficult one. Nobody knows that better than the Minister. It is a good thing that we have, as head of the Department of Defence, a man with such a long and honourable record as a medical man as the present Minister. I say that because medical men generally deal with cases in a human way. I hope that some of the cases that are still outstanding—that is applications for the payment of disability pensions—will get more consideration under the present Minister than they received from his predecessors.

The Minister, in the course of his statement, referred to applications for the payment of special allowances. I have come across innumerable cases in regard to applications for disability pensions which I cannot understand. I have had personal experience of a most curious kind of case, and I doubt if even the Minister himself could explain it to the satisfaction of common-sense people. I wonder is it true—the Minister is in a position to say more on this as he has the information at his disposal—that, when recruitment took place for the National Army in the civil war and subsequent periods, young men were, in many cases, taken into it, without being put through any medical examination. Will he tell us what kind of examination was carried out? Recently, I came across a case—the man lives in Deputy Colley's constituency—of a hard-working young fellow who joined the National Army during the emergency period. He left a fairly well paid position in order to do so. I was informed by himself that he was medically examined. He was out on a route march one day in the County Galway and fell out. Because he fell out and complained he was immediately brought before the divisional medical officer and discharged from the Army as being medically unfit. He came to me because I was to some extent concerned with his position to see if he could get back the fairly well-paid position which he formerly held. He produced the certificate that he had been discharged from the Army as medically unfit. Under the regulations of the public company in which he had been formerly employed, it is not possible in such cases to take a man back into the service. He appeared to be a fine young fellow and I felt for him. He eventually told me that what was wrong with him was due to an accident which he had met with when playing football in Croke Park earlier in his life. He received a kick in the leg and the injury came against him later.

As a result of his discharge from the Army on the medical certificate of the divisional medical officer that man could not get back his former position. That was a bad kind of case. After consultation with other people, I suggested to him that if he had a family doctor he should go to him and get examined, and ask him to certify as to whether he was medically fit to do the type of work that he had been doing for many years before he joined the National Army. I also told him not to produce the discharge form that he had got from the Army. As a matter of fact, he got a certificate from the family doctor certifying that he was physically fit to be taken back into his former position. The point I want to make is that if the military certificate had been produced and if other red tape regulations had been complied with, his was a case where he should not have been taken back.

I had another case in the last couple of weeks of a young man in the same area where the circumstances were much the same as in the last one. It was known that he was due to leave the Army on the 4th of this month. He is one of eight children and was considered suitable for a certain position. He was called up and sent before a well-known city surgeon. He was turned down because, to my amazement, it was alleged that he had a murmur of the heart. He is a longdistance champion runner. He was a prominent member of the Army hurling team in the divisional area in which he served, and yet he was turned down for the reason I have stated. I suggested to him that he might go back to the divisional medical officer of the area in which he served, and to his family doctor, for examination. I understand that the divisional medical officer does not agree with the opinion of this other medical man, and that the man's family doctor does not agree with it. At the moment I understand that the man is in the military hospital, at the Curragh, and what will happen in that case I do not know. We know there is very often a difference of opinion amongst medical men, but in these cases the difference of opinion has a very direct bearing on the livelihood of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Allen

Doctors differ and patients die.

Mr. Davin

That is so. The Minister, in the concluding portion of his speech, referred to the intention of the Department to introduce amending legislation in connection with the payment of special allowances. I propose to read a letter which I received during the last few days. I do not know the individual concerned, but some of my colleagues may also have received a letter from him. I think that the Minister himself knows this particular individual. If Deputy Traynor speaks on this question I should like to hear from him what he would do if he still had the power to deal with a case of its kind. This man writes:

"I hold pre-truce service medal with bar. I have been ill for close on two years. In 1946 I applied for special allowance under the 1946 Act. I was called before the Medical Board in St. Bricin's. My claim was disallowed. It was stated that I was suffering from no permanent infirmity. I again applied under the 1947 Act and was called before the board on March 3rd. Quite appropriately on All Fools' day I again received notification that I had no permanent infirmity, despite the fact that in February, 1947, I was before the National Health Insurance medical referee who certified me unfit for any work and warned me to be careful as my heart was in a bad state, and that I was suffering from bronchitis of the lungs."

There, again, you have a difference of opinion on the part of a medical man representing the National Health Insurance Society and an Army medical officer. The writer goes on to say:

"I am now attempting to exist with my wife on 8/10 service pension and 15/- national health disablement weekly and have decided to seek admission to the county home as we are rapidly growing weaker daily from lack of sufficient and proper food. I will be the first of my family to die in that institution, and, as a sinisterly significant fact, am the first of them with a national record. And it will give the lie to the late Defence Minister's heroic statement at the passing of the amendment that"

—and this is the statement which Deputy Traynor is supposed to have made—

"‘there would now be no occasion for any Old I.R.A. man to die in the workhouse.' I was never a politician"

—this is interesting for all of us—

"but was available in every emergency from 1917 to 1946 as a soldier, but I am now beginning to think that if I had devoted my youthful and more mature energies to the nebulous business of politics instead of the more practical work of soldiering, I would not, now that I am broken in health, be a candidate for the poorhouse."

I could go on quoting further extracts —amusing extracts, if they can be called amusing—from this letter.

Dr. O'Higgins

Did the letter come from Ballylinan?

Mr. Davin

From Ballylehane, Ballylinan, County Laoighis. I suspect the Minister will know more about the man than I. It is obviously written by a man who, if it is true, is facing the poorhouse. It is a sad state of affairs, and, if the Minister has any power to reopen cases of this kind, I appeal to him, as a medical man with a human outlook, to amend the Act, if necessary, in such a way as to dispose finally of such cases. I do not want to go into details of many other cases which have come to my notice, but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say regarding the exceptionally large number of people who have applied for disability pensions and whose claims were turned down—in some cases, wrongly—on the ground that the disease from which they are suffering was not contracted during their period of military service.

If these men were not properly examined by medical officers when entering the Army, how can it be certified, when they are discharged medically unfit, that the disease was not contracted during their period of service? I do not want to express opinions on this matter, because opinions can properly be expressed only by medical men, but I cannot understand why such a large number of cases are awaiting consideration and such a large number of applications for disability pensions have been turned down. I invite the Minister—I know I am inviting him to take on a tremendous task—to take such action as will bring all these old outstanding genuine cases, whether applications for military service pensions or disability pensions, to a final, and, if possible, to a satisfactory conclusion within a reasonable period.

Mr. Traynor

Deputy Davin started off by making an appeal to the Minister to bring all this matter of pensions to a final conclusion, and he followed that up by saying that there were several cases in which he was interested, and one in particular, in which I refused to agree to a review.

Mr. Davin

Yes.

Mr. Traynor

He wanted that review carried on. This House decided that there would be a final date for the hearing of pension claims. That date was put into legislation and that legislation is now operating, and neither the Minister nor anybody else has any power to alter it. The House can alter it, if the Minister is prepared to bring in an amendment of that section, but the position at the moment is that the Minister has to operate within the section. He can do nothing about it any more than I can. I should also mention, because I was a party to it, as was my predecessor, that, on no less than 16 occasions, the date in that Act was extended, the last extension being to 31st December, 1946. Surely a period of 14 years was ample for the making of applications. I know that certain people refused to apply for pensions on grounds of principle and at a later stage changed their minds and applied, but it was then too late and I could do nothing about it, unless I was prepared to bring in a recommendation that the section be amended.

The Deputy has spoken about cases in relation to the special allowances and referred to a statement I made. I made that statement in all good faith. The medical board set up by the Minister for Defence was the judge. It consisted of men of integrity and I am sure that Deputy Davin will not suggest that any of the gentlemen on that board had any personal feelings with regard to any applicant. Whatever decision the board arrived at in a particular case was arrived at on the basis of their knowledge as medical men and the evidence placed before them.

Mr. Davin

Who fixed the figure of 8/10?

Mr. Traynor

We can explain that also. The figure of 8/10, to which I intend to refer in a moment, was fixed with relation to the amount of money a man was supposed to have as private means.

There are three items which I want to bring to the Minister's attention and to ask for his sympathetic consideration with regard to them. I want to preface what I intend to say by mentioning that I had made preparations to bring in these amendments when the change of Government took place. He will find that in respect of the first of these matters I had a recommendation prepared for submission to the Government, which submission, I hoped, would have been successful. I am now referring to the section in the Acts—the 1924 Act as well as the 1934 Act—by which a pension may be forfeited following a criminal conviction. I did not find it until pretty late in my period of office. It was brought to my attention as the result of one particular case, and when I examined it I found two or three other cases that were also applicable. If an individual with a small pension, a minimum amount, commits some crime, a crime perhaps which would be worthy of a very severe sentence, and he does, in fact, receive that sentence, then he forfeits his pension as well as receiving the penalty of imprisonment. That inflicts on the individual not alone the penalty of imprisonment, but a fine which the justice who tried the case did not visualise. In the case of a man who was perhaps receiving the maximum pension and who would be guilty of a crime, perhaps only a crime of a technical character, a man who maybe in a moment of anger struck another and received a formal sentence, that individual was in receipt not only of a sentence of imprisonment but had inflicted upon him a fine which in the course of time might run into hundreds of pounds and maybe thousands of pounds. I do not think that justice is meted out in a case of that kind. Unless that man was legally represented, the judge in the case might not be aware that that man was in receipt of a pension. He only intended to inflict the sentence of imprisonment which he thought the crime to be worthy of, but he had not the intention of also inflicting a heavy fine. I had a submission prepared for the Government, and the Minister will, no doubt, find copies of this submission in his office. All I am asking him to do is to continue the action which I started. The position can be safeguarded by the fact that the Minister, after consultation with, perhaps, the Minister for Finance, can decide on the case. In that way finance and public funds will be safeguarded. The Minister need not take any action if he deems the crime to be of such a type as to merit a fine plus imprisonment, and in such case I am pretty certain that justice will have been done.

Another point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and ask his sympathetic consideration is the application of the means test in cases such as Deputy Davin mentioned, such as the case of a person who is in receipt of 8/9. Again, the Minister will find that I had all preparations made for bringing this to the attention of the Government for the purpose of being permitted to have it changed. I found that the whole spirit of this special allowance was not operating.

One case which was brought to my attention was that of a sister who was supporting her brother who, as a result of an examination by this board, was granted an allowance. This girl, as I said, was supporting her brother by going out working. The man had become completely incapable of working and was confined to bed. When the means test inspector examined this case he assessed this man's keep at a certain amount. I am not quite certain of the actual amount but it does not make a lot of difference as the principle is the same. The inspector said that the man was being kept free, so to speak, and he assessed a sum of money against that keep so the allowance which this House provided for that man was cut down by that amount. I considered that a grave injustice and I felt that neither myself nor this House had visualised such a set of circumstances.

I do know that there is a means test that is applied in a general way and if it is discovered that an individual who applies and who may be genuinely incapable of earning his living is the owner of a house and is in receipt of rent for the letting of rooms in that house, that that is then assessed against him. I have no objection to that, but I would strongly object in a case where a sister is so loyal to her brother that she not only supports him but makes him comfortable in the morning before leaving for her business and comes back in the evening to attend to him again, that that keep and that comfort should be assessed against that unfortunate man. That is against the spirit and the principle which was set down here. I again want to emphasise the fact that I had made preparations to deal with that position by an amendment of the Act and I would ask the Minister now to give sympathetic consideration in regard to the action which I initiated.

Another point I would like to make was answered by the Minister the other day in reply to a question. It is the question of the extension of the date for the receipt of medals and I am glad to see that the Minister is going on with that. It is good, because the case of applicants for medals is the same as the case of a large number of people who did not apply for pensions but when they found that there was a possibility of a special allowance did apply, but then found that they had exceeded the date, and the plea I am making is that the date should be extended in order to give them the chance of applying now.

I was going to draw attention to the question of the Connaught Rangers, but the Minister mentioned that also and apparently it is only a question of having a particular amendment in order to bring the men of the Connaught Rangers into line with those who are drawing pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act.

Mr. Madden

If I am in order, a Chinn Comhairle, I want to ask the Minister a question which I have been asked by many of my constituents who asked me for certain information which up to now I was not in a position to give them. Deputy Davin in his forcible manner wanted consideration of this case for the consideration of which he seems to have given good and sufficient reasons. I have been asked if there is any machinery by which an investigation can be held as to why certain individuals in my constituency are getting pensions when I am told on convincing and authoritative evidence that a number of them have never been associated with any Army, either anterior to the days of the 1916 Rebellion or subsequently. I want to know if there is any machinery whereby a thorough investigation could be made of that matter. There is, and ever shall be, national appreciation for service given by men for their motherland, but there is reason for disquietude amongst many people in my constituency at men being paid having rendered no service. Deputy Traynor has asked that the distribution of medals should be expedited. Surely it is ironical that men who have rendered no service should not alone get pensions, but should receive medals. I would ask the Minister to give me the essential information so that I may be in a position to transmit it to those who have asked me about the matter, about which I had no knowledge.

Captain Cowan

There are a couple of matters that I should like to refer to on this Estimate. I am pleased to know that steps were being taken by Deputy Traynor, when he was Minister, steps that I hope will be followed by the present Minister, to deal with the matter of forfeiture of pensions on conviction. I agree with Deputy Traynor that that rule operates very severely and harshly in a number of cases. I, too, would urge on the Minister that the matter should be examined at an early date.

A great deal has been done in a series of Pensions Acts over a period of 24 or 25 years to deal with problems of pension, problems of disability and problems of incapacity due to service. One of the great troubles in connection with this series of Acts is the difficulty of knowing what Act applies, what provisions and allowances apply, and it would seem to me that after the experience of 24 years it could be possible to bring all these Acts together into some form of simplified code that would make it easy to deal with applications for pensions as they arise.

One of the difficulties—and this applies to applicants who have served in the Defence Forces—has been delay in dealing with applications. There have been cases of soldiers discharged with tuberculosis having to wait a period of more than two years to have their claims finally investigated. I came across one particular case of an applicant discharged from the Defence Forces with tuberculosis who had not his case investigated within a two-year period. When the Department's attention was directed to the serious condition of that young boy, immediate arrangements were made to examine him and every expedition was used in granting him a pension. His pension, with arrears totalling approximately £200, was received as he was preparing to die. I felt at the time that that was a case of great hardship, that that boy might have been saved and could have been saved if his widowed mother had been in a position to buy essential nourishment and food for him. I know the sympathetic interest the present Minister has in these matters and I would ask that the investigation of all claims be expedited and that they should not be held over for the long periods that have been the experience in the past.

This Book of Estimates provides pensions and allowances for the widows and children of deceased officers of the Defence Forces. There are 70 widows and children involved and the total estimate for those 70 in this financial year is £2,314, or an average of £33 each. I think everyone in this House and everyone who has experience of particular cases would agree that those statutory allowances are entirely inadequate in present circumstances. I would ask the Minister to consider the inadequacy of the allowances and to make arrangements to increase them. I think many requests have been made to the Department of Defence on that matter and I would just like to stress it here.

In the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme section of the Estimates provision is made for pensions for 226 officers. These officers have been retired in the last few years. The great majority of them are young, active and fit for further service. Their average age is 46 or 47 years. The Defence Forces Pensions Scheme which provides for their retirement made no provision whereby their services would be available to this State in case of emergency. The position then is that we are providing in these Estimates for the payment of very substantial sums of money to those retired officers without there being any obligation on them to render service to the country in case of emergency. Under another Vote which has been disposed of the matter of personnel was mentioned and I would suggest to the Minister that these well-trained, efficient and experienced officers, who are in receipt of pensions under the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme, could be made available to render service to the country by being commissioned in the reserve of officers, under the terms and conditions now applicable to the reserve of officers.

I want to draw attention also to another section, consisting of 19 officers. some of whom served in 1916—one of them in the General Post Office and another in Boland's Mill—and all of whom have given pre-Truce service. At the date of their retirement, they were holding acting ranks and had held them for a considerable period. I am sure it must have been a mistake, but they were retired without having those acting ranks confirmed. They would have been entitled to a pension at the rate of £15 a year had their ranks been confirmed, but although they had filled them for a long period the necessary confirmation was not given and their pension is now paid at the rate of £10 a year. I think it is only necessary to bring that to the Minister's attention to have it examined and a measure of justice meted out to those 19 individuals.

I have been handed a letter from a retired company sergeant who is in receipt of a service pension and also a small disability pension of £1 13s. 7d. a week. Because of the disability pension, apparently—I have not been able to look this up myself, as I have only received the letter—he is entitled to draw only one-third of his service pension. It seems to be that that principle is one for investigation by the Minister.

In the case of payment of small pensions, particularly to widows of soldiers who were killed during the civil war period, I understand they are paid monthly. There has been a general suggestion that they would be of more benefit to the recipients if they were paid weekly, and I would ask the Minister to give that matter his consideration.

A special case was made by those reserve officers who were retired under the age limits last year or the year before. That special case was made to the former Taoiseach and the former Minister for Defence by a deputation, and I think that it was then clearly pointed out to them that provision could not be made or that they could hold out no hope of their being paid a pension. Those men have all rendered 24 years' continuous service to the country. They served approximately seven years in the regular Army first, then 10 years on the reserve, and then a further period of regular Army service during the emergency. They were serving under the type of contract that was mentioned. There are two things the Minister could do with them. One would be to grant them a pension. I do not think that would be the proper way to deal with them at the moment. The other would be to reinstate them in their commissions until they reach the age of 55 or 60, as the case may be. I must, on this Estimate, put it to the Minister that he should award them a pension, but I think it would be in the public interest, in the interest of the country, if he did the other thing.

I said at the beginning that I was glad steps had been taken by the former Minister, which I hope will be followed by the present Minister, to deal with the forfeiture clause on conviction. I appreciate that, with the best will in the world to make legislation that will confer benefits on certain individuals, that will can be defeated by a harsh administration of the particular Act; and I would ask the Minister to request those officials of the Department who are dealing with all those pension applications to deal with them on a humane basis. If that can be done, quite a number of present border-line cases of great hardship will be dealt with satisfactorily. I appreciate that it is a big problem for the Minister. I know he will approach it in the right way. If he can remove those grave hardships and injustices, his period of service as Minister for Defence will be gratefully remembered by the great number who depend on a humane interpretation and administration of the Act to give them the pensions to which I feel, and they feel, they are entitled.

Major de Valera

On another occasion I dealt with the question of certain of the regular Army personnel who were retired before a certain date in 1946. The actual day was the 2nd September. An arrangement was arrived at whereby people who were retired anterior to that date received pensions on the old scale, while those who retired after that date got the benefit of certain increases. I pointed out on the Defence Forces Bill last year that it amounted to a discrimination between people who are actually in comparable categories on the basis of a date and that that was inequitable. It was argued against me at that time that some dead line had to be taken, and no action was taken to adjust what I consider is an inequitable situation.

For some time thereafter it was not possible to get the question reopened but, towards the end of last year, a Garda Síochána Pensions Bill was introduced which apparently made provision of a somewhat similar nature for that force. Immediately it appeared then that there was an even stronger case to be made for those members of the Defence Forces who retired before the 2nd September, 1946. I approached the Minister's predecessor and was informed that, having regard to the fact that the Garda situation has been reconsidered, the Defence Forces position could be reopened, or at least that sympathetic consideration would be given to it, but that probably it would be ultimately a question for the Department of Finance.

The general election intervened and there was not an opportunity of pressing the matter further. I now take this opportunity of drawing the Minister's attention to the situation. Details of the case will be found in some remarks I made here a year ago. If the Minister will now approach it in the same sympathetic manner as his predecessor was prepared to consider it having regard to what was done in the case of the Garda, I would be grateful to him. I ask him to take up this matter and try to secure that members of the regular Army who served during the emergency and previously and who are entitled to the consideration of the State in their later years will be treated on a more or less even basis and that the discrimination on the basis of a date will be obliterated.

Mr. J. Flynn

I should like to deal with disability pensions. I have already mentioned this matter to the Minister for Defence. When a man has been dealt with by the Pensions Board he is informed that he cannot appeal for 12 months. He is legally debarred from submitting any appeal against the board's decision for 12 months. I suggest that that is very drastic. In the old age pension and all the other Pension Acts there is no such provision so far as I understand. Six months is the maximum period mentioned in those other Acts for the purpose of an appeal. Anything could happen the unfortunate individual in the 12 months and he cannot have his case reopened. I respectfully ask the Minister to consider this matter. I suggest there should be amending legislation as early as possible. That would be greatly appreciated by the people generally, and particularly those who gave such good service to the country in time of need.

Deputy Cowan referred to border-line cases. Deputy Traynor, when he was Minister for Defence, also referred to these border-line cases. If I remember rightly, in 1946 he admitted that there were such people, that there would be approximately 1,000 men in the whole country who could be classed as coming within the category of border-line cases. I am referring now to men who applied for service pensions and whose claims were rejected. Even though Deputy Traynor at that period admitted they were harshly treated and were border-line cases, he immediately set out to preclude them from having any chance of making an appeal or getting justice. He introduced his famous 1946 amending Act, which denied them the right to make a case. So far as I can remember, the present Minister for Justice tabled an amendment at that period which would have brought in these men and enabled their cases to be dealt with, but it was not accepted. Perhaps the present Minister for Defence at some future date will give sympathetic consideration to these men. I will not ask him to do so immediately, because I appreciate the difficulties that face him, and to try to adjust everything at the one time would be humanly impossible. I am not now making a general statement with regard to persons over the whole country. I am merely referring to men who come into the category to which I have referred and who are really deserving of sympathetic consideration.

Some of these men were debarred on merely technical points. As Deputy Cowan has said, if a humane interpretation were put on these provisions and on the interpretation of these regulations under the Acts, these men would have been successful in their claims, and would have received justice even under existing legislation. It cannot be denied that Deputy Traynor introduced the very Act that left them no chance whatever. I refer to the amending Act of 1946.

Perhaps I am not in order in suggesting legislation under this Estimate. I am merely taking advantage of the first opportunity I have and because of the other matters that have been raised of bringing these injustices to the Minister's attention. When the Minister has an opportunity I would ask him to examine the whole question and see if something cannot be done to meet these cases.

Mr. Keane

I was very pleased to hear Deputy Traynor say a moment ago that the Minister had agreed to extend the date for making application for service medals. I am aware that several people who are entitled to those medals did not apply within the statutory period through no fault of their own.

I take this opportunity of bringing before the Minister a couple of cases where I consider glaring injustice was done to applicants for military service pensions. The pensions board set up under the Act of 1934 based service more or less on the pre-Truce period, particularly in regard to major engagements, but this regulation does not seem to have been rigidly observed in the case of some claimants. In other cases it was observed to the disadvantage of perfectly legitimate claimants. Now, I have here the case of William Roche of Skeheen. He joined the Volunteers in 1917. He took part in all company activities, becoming a captain in March, 1921. He was in charge of an ambush during which some rifles were captured and two of his own men were wounded. In that actual ambush two barracks were involved, the police barracks in Mitchelstown and the military barracks. After the Truce that man was promoted to brigade police officer. I think it was Simon Donnelly who was in charge of the police force of the country at that time. I am sure Deputy Traynor remembers when that police force was established. William Roche acted as brigade police officer up to the time of the burning of Athenry barracks in 1922. His police duties then finished and he retired into civilian life. He was turned down when he applied for a pension because he had not sufficient service.

John O'Neill of the same townland took part in all company activities. He was a first lieutenant in Mitchelstown. He was also a column man and served in the fourth battalion of the 2nd Cork Brigade. During the truce period he acted as a training officer. He was second-in-command of Kilworth Camp and second-in-command in the barracks in Fermoy. He acted as a bodyguard at one time to Deputy de Valera. He took part in the capture of Urlingford Barracks from the National Army; he took part in the fight at Longford Pass—sometimes known as "Mary Willies." I am sure Deputy Davern knows the place.

Mr. Davern

I should say so.

Mr. Keane

He took part in some other engagements too. He was deemed not to have sufficient service to entitle him to a pension. Patrick Buckley, of Araglen, received a pension of £16 a year. I spent two terms in prison with Patrick Buckley, one in Wormwood Scrubs and one in Spike Island. I am aware of his activities pre-truce. He took no part in the civil war. On his pre-truce service he was granted a pension of £16 a year. He appealed and that pension was reduced to £11.

Another constituent of mine, Lizzie Delarue, applied for a pension. She was a member of the Cumann na mBan before 1916. She looked after a small dump for a time. She was responsible for the collection of moneys in Mitchelstown, moneys collected for the supply of certain things to the prisoners and also to help their dependents. She was in charge of all that. I was a witness before the board when four other women were granted pensions. In the case of Lizzie Delarue it was said that she had more service than the other four put together. She did not get a pension.

I hope that the Minister will take the first opportunity of doing something to remedy such injustices. I have here a letter written to John O'Neill in which it is said:

"I am directed by the Minister for Defence to state that the Referee reported that you are not a person to whom the Act applies."

I wonder did Deputy Traynor read O'Neill's file when he was Minister for Defence? Did Deputy Traynor, after reading O'Neill's file, consider that he was not a fit applicant for a pension?

Mr. Traynor

On a point of explanation, the files are confidential to the Referee and board and the Minister never sees them.

Mr. Keane

I am glad to have that information. I had an idea that the Deputy would not have tolerated an injustice like that. There are other matters I would like to raise, but I think perhaps it is not opportune to do so now. I will content myself by saying that not in every case did Caesar get what was Caesar's due. I am deeply concerned with the injustices perpetrated. The brigade officers must appreciate the merits of those cases. They know all the facts. With regard to the specific cases I have mentioned I myself would be prepared to go before any board or any court of justice to substantiate those claims. I am not the only one prepared to do that.

I am interested too in the case of an applicant for a disablement pension. I know the applicant personally. He was a road worker who joined the Army during the emergency. He is now deemed not to have a sufficient disability to entitle him to a pension. On the other hand the National Health is paying him disablement benefit. His case was heard under the special allowances cases some 12 months ago. He got a notice that he had not sufficient disability to entitle him to a special allowance and that his case would be reopened again in 12 months. Another Deputy, I think, has referred to that matter to-day. I am sure the Minister will realise that 12 months to a disabled man on disablement benefit from the National Health Insurance is a long time, maybe too long. Why not reduce the period—make it three months or six months—and give such a man a chance of cking out whatever length of time he will have in this world under better conditions than he is carrying on under at the moment?

Judging by the speeches that have been made by the Deputies in this House on this Vote, it would seem that there is a general anxiety to see that justice is done to people who, for some reason or another, did not get it under the 1934 Act. I hope that the Minister will bear that matter in mind. I do not want to have pensions given to every man who thinks he was in the I.R.A. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech is all right, but when a man thinks that he is entitled to a pension I do not want the Minister to make an amendment to any Act for such man. I maintain that people who are prepared to come with their witnesses on oath— witnesses whose integrity cannot be questioned—should get fair treatment. I hope the Minister in the near future —although I am not supposed to speak on legislation now—will do his best to rectify those cases.

Mr. A. Byrne

I shall be very brief, because most of the points which I intended to deal with have been dealt with by other Deputies. I, also, rise to appeal to the Minister in regard to that very grave injustice that was done to the men with 21 and 24 years' service who were discharged prior to the 2nd September, 1946. I will read one paragraph from a note which I have from an organisation which calls itself "The Association of Regular Ex-Servicemen, Defence Forces"—honorary secretary, Mr. J.P. Thomas:—

"We, on behalf of the members of the above association, desire to bring to your notice the discrimination used by the late Government against non-commissioned officers and men with pensionable service who were discharged prior to the 2nd September, 1946."

Had these men been allowed to remain for another three, four or six months, they would have had a substantial increase in their pension. Those who went out 12 months after them and who had not reached the same rank as they had at the time got better pensions. These long-service men say that a few months before 2nd September, 1946, they were encouraged by their commanding officers to avail of the opportunities that offered outside to go and seek employment. They say, too, that it was with a view to helping the Government in their demobilisation schemes of that year that a number of the very old hands took their discharges six months before the 2nd September, 1946, and lost considerably as a result. The note states, further, that evidence can be submitted on oath and that affidavits can be produced from long-service members to the effect that they were paraded in the barrack square and encouraged by their commanding officer to leave the Army at that time. On a previous occasion, I think about a year ago, I asked whether the Government of that period were aware of the fact that, a few months after they encouraged these long-service men to go out on the lower pension, they were going to introduce a new pensions scheme that would give benefit to the long-service men and whether, in order that they might have a lesser number to whom to give the increased pensions, they got these men to retire before the 2nd September, 1946. Those men number only a few hundred and they feel that they have a great grievance. Personally, I think an injustice has been done to them. I was considering how best I might bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and the following is a motion that I had intended to put down. However, I believe that now is the time to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and there may be no need to give notice of the motion, which reads as follows:—

"That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the N.C.O.s and men of the regular Army who completed 21 to 23 years' pensionable service during the period 1922 to 1946, inclusive, and discharged on pension under the 1937 Pensions Act prior to September 2nd, 1946, be included in the award of pension increase as granted under the 1947 Pensions (Amendment) Act to the N.C.O.s and men who completed the 21 to 23 years' pensionable service during the period 1922 to 1946, inclusive, and discharged on pension subsequent to September 2nd, 1946."

Perhaps the Minister will deal with this matter immediately and thus obviate the necessity for putting that motion down. In view of the small number of men involved I would ask the Minister to do something to remove the injustice and the seeming ingratitude that has been shown to these men.

I would also remind the Minister of a case with which, I think, most of the members of this House have had something to do. I refer to a tuberculosis patient named Michael Donnelly. I meet him regularly in the city and he is certainly suffering very great hardships. His health is completely gone. His case is one of those borderline cases which would require sympathetic consideration by a few officers whose attitude would be: "Can we give him the benefit of the doubt?" He is getting a pension and he did get some small consideration up to a few years ago but he is now one of those men who have tuberculosis and who are struggling hard for an existence. He produced a certificate from Dr. McCartan to the effect that he attended to his wounds in the early days of the struggle for freedom in this country. The case of Michael Donnelly is one of those peculiar cases that no matter what answer you get from a Department you still feel an injustice has been done. That is particularly so when you see the man and observe his physical condition generally. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to go into Donnelly's case—and into that of other similar tuberculosis cases—which is a borderline case, to see whether the benefit might be given to him. I know that we are dealing with a sympathetic Minister and I would appeal to him, if it is possible, to remedy these injustices. If that is not possible, perhaps he will consider the advisability, as another Deputy has already suggested, of introducing legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not have said "legislation".

Mr. Sweetman

I wish to associate myself with the plea made by Deputy Alfred Byrne and others, and to renew to this Minister a plea I made on three different occasions in the other House to the previous Minister, but to which he was not prepared to accede. In my view, a very grave injustice was perpetrated in respect of men who retired from the Army between the date of the demobilisation papers on the 6th May, 1945, and the 2nd September, 1946. In other countries the date to be considered as the operative date for the enforcement of pensions was the date upon which those countries determined that there was no longer any need to retain their armies on a war-time footing and on which they introduced demobilisation schemes. Here that precedent was not followed. In consequence of that, those energetic men who followed the advice given them by individual officers, and who went out of the Army and got civilian employment, were unfortunately penalised inasmuch as they did not qualify for the increased pension to which they would have been entitled had they remained in the Army to a later date. The total amount involved may not be very large, but it means 25 per cent. of their pensions.

There is even more than the question of the actual decision in these cases. Certain people were given the tip to stay on and, if the Minister wants it, I can give him the name of an officer who made no secret of the fact that he was told that he should stay on until the operative date for the new scales. For that reason he did stay on and is, therefore, in a better position to-day than persons who left the Army and did what they were asked to do by the Government at the time. They went out and got into civilian employment and in consequence of that they were penalised in a most unjust and unfair manner by the operation of the 1947 scheme.

Mr. Hilliard

In the administration of the special allowances section of the 1946 Act, I find that a successful applicant under that section if he is maintained in a public hospital has by reason of that fact a sum of £52 per year assessed by the Department as portion of his means and there is a deduction made from the allowance which should be paid to such a successful applicant to the extent of £52 per year. In my opinion, that is not in keeping with the intention of the Oireachtas when the Act was passed. It was the intention of the Oireachtas to obviate the necessity of permanently maintaining such persons in county homes or county hospitals.

Dr. O'Higgins

That has been done away with now. It has been done away with in the last couple of weeks.

Mr. Hilliard

I am glad to hear from the Minister that the practice has ceased. I wonder is it still the practice to take into consideration a disability pension in the assessment of a man's means? If a man is in receipt of a small disability pension and qualifies for a special allowance in respect of some disease or of something that was not covered by the Disability Pensions Act, will the allowance paid to him under the Disability Pensions Act be taken into consideration in the assessment of his means under the special allowances section? I think that that should cease also. These are the only points I have to make in connection with the administration of the Disability Pensions Act or of the Service Pensions Act. These matters have been debated here time and again. I find myself personally that a good deal of sympathetic consideration is certainly given applicants by the Department of Defence and by the members of the Army Pensions Board, but no matter what type of legislation is passed by the House, we shall always have cases of hardship which will not be covered by the Act and that will be outside the provisions of certain sections of the Act.

Mr. Dunne

I shall be very brief. I merely rise because I am at a loss to understand why it is that the men who answered the call of Joseph Plunkett and Sir Roger Casement in 1916 do not benefit in any way under any of the Pensions Acts. I understand that at the moment there are 24 survivors of the Casement Brigade. Until recently, at any rate, one of these survivors was to be found in a workhouse. I think that is something that is a scandal when we consider that these men, as every Deputy is aware, underwent certain risks during that period and displayed a spirit of patriotism equal to that displayed by any section of the national movement at any period of the national struggle. I would make a special appeal on behalf of this handful of men, the 24 who still remain alive, that some provision should be made for them in the declining years of their lives and that some compensation should be given them in respect of the service which they undoubtedly gave in the fight for the independence of this country.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to put a few facts before the House in regard to the administration of these Acts and particularly in regard to the means test. I have before me the case of one Old I.R.A. man, who is a tuberculosis case and who is in receipt of only £54 a year. I know other men registered as unemployed at the labour exchange whose meagre pensions are assessed in the means test to their detriment. The 1934 Act was brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government but apparently it only covered people who were members of that Party. We find that the means test is operated at the labour exchange against 1916 men with very small pensions, as low as 2/4 a week, while big business men who are in a good way of living have got big pensions without any means test simply because they were members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might bear in mind that there are at least two other Deputies who would like to intervene in the debate before it is concluded.

Mr. O'Leary

I shall not detain the House very long. I have been speaking on this subject every time these Votes are brought before the House. I should like to express my agreement with the views expressed by the previous speaker in regard to the treatment given to members of the Casement Brigade. I met one of these men in Galway some time ago who got no compensation. I travelled last Wednesday with an ex-Connaught Ranger who took part in the mutiny and he was on his way back to England looking for work. These are the people who should have been looked after instead of the wealthy people who are drawing big pensions. Poor people, who made just as big sacrifices, are getting small pittances of 3/6 or 4/- a week. That is a matter that any Government should be ashamed of. Then we have had the case of soldiers discharged as medically unfit. I brought several cases before the late Minister of men who were discharged as medically unfit and the replies received from the Department was that they had not 80 per cent. disease, or that they did not contract the disease in the service. In that case, they must have been unfit when they were entering the Army and, if so, why were they passed by the doctor? Some of these men have died since and have left widows. We have had Acts brought in to provide pensions for able-bodied men while men who served the State until they were no longer able, or who died in the service, some even who were injured in explosions, got nothing.

I think the Minister will want to examine the whole position with regard to the Military Service Pensions Acts. I come from a town in which many people took part in the Rising in 1916 and I know of genuine cases there which were very badly treated by the board and the referee simply because they took no part in the Civil War. To my mind, the 1934 Act was brought in, not to give pensions to the men of 1916, or the men of the Connaught Rangers, or the men who joined the Casement brigade, but simply to give pensions to the followers of the then Government. That can be proved if necessary. That Act created many grievances all over the country, because some people were passed for pensions while others who served along with them were turned down. Yesterday in answer to a question the Minister stated that he could not reopen cases under the 1945 Act. I appeal to him to reopen genuine cases of men in my county who took part in the 1916 Rising. I am not talking about those who took part in the Civil War. Surely the men who took part in that rising should get what they are entitled to. I do not think the people would object to the little extra expenditure necessary to meet these cases. After all, it is the men of 1916 who are responsible for this Parliament being here.

Mr. Davern

I was very pleased to hear the many pleas from Deputies on each side of the House for reconsideration of the grievances of many members of the Old I.R.A. There is no doubt that many of these men failed to bring their cases before the board because they were living in remote districts, because their superior officers had died, and for other reasons. I believe that most sympathetic consideration should be given to many of the claims that were turned down. I was pleased that the Minister had agreed to consider favourably the promise made by his predecessor with regard to extending the application period for service medals. Many of the people entitled to service medals were out of this country. They had not recourse to Press advertisements or any other information which would lead them to believe that the period was closing on the 31st December, 1946. Therefore, I think they should certainly get consideration.

I was also pleased to hear that the practice of deducting certain amounts for hospital treatment has been done away with. I should like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to allow to the widow of one of these Old I.R.A. men who had been in hospital the large amount of £52 which was deducted in his case. I believe that the remedy for many of the grievances of these men is that any man who can prove that he had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight or nine years, genuine service should be given a grant for each year's service. I think that is the way to satisfy many of those applicants who were turned down by the board. I am quite satisfied that the green-eyed monster interfered now and again in these cases. I believe that this matter should be reconsidered and that these men should be given a gratuity. In that way, I believe that we would fully satisfy the claims of these Old I.R.A. men. That, of course, will mean increased expenditure, but we must realise that the freedom of this country was regained at a price which was unequalled by any other State in the world.

Mr. Hickey

I should like to say that I know of cases, and the Minister also knows of them, of applicants for pensions who died before their cases were considered. In these cases I think the widows who have dependent children should, if at all possible, be given some compensation.

Dr. O'Higgins

In the short time available I am anxious to impress on every Deputy that I do not claim to be conversant with all these Acts we are discussing. As Deputies heard, from the opening statement, there are 22 Pensions Acts of various kinds and I am just a learner. There are a great number of snags of one kind or another that would make it legally impossible to do a great number of the things suggested here. My mental outlook is to give the maximum that everybody is entitled to under these Acts and, having given the maximum to which they are entitled under these Acts and under the law as it exists, then to lean back and examine that law and to see to what extent it has to be altered or amended in order to rectify injustices that may exist under the present Acts. I can assure Deputy Traynor and the Dáil generally that anything that was under way in the direction of extending the scope of these Acts and which was found to be desirable, anything that was in the process of building, so far as I can do it, the structure will be completed. The Deputy, however, knows as well as I do that there are other jumps after the Department of Defence has done its job and I can only endeavour to do my best in crossing those jumps as an amateur pilot. However, I will do the best I can.

With regard to the matter put forward by Deputy Madden, the reopening of cases of persons that he thinks, or some of his neighbours think, should not have got pensions, I do not think that such a course would meet with anything like popular or general approval. There were boards there under the 1924, the 1934, and other Acts. The members of those boards held responsible positions and I am prepared to accept the fact that they carried out their duties in a responsible manner. There may have been faulty certification which went before any of those boards, and the multiplicity of cases put up here indicates that if we are to be diverted from attending to that kind of important work by turning ourselves into coroners and holding so many postmortems we will do no good and very much harm will result. I have no intention—nor do I think it would be right even to play with the idea—of reopening the case of anybody who has already got an award. Some may have got a luckier hop of the ball than others. That is life, but if anything is to be done in this direction it will be done in proceeding with the ameliorative measures that were already under review.

Points in regard to delays in dealing with these disability pensions were referred to by a number of Deputies. Extra divisional medical officers have been authorised to act, and I think that those delays have already been reduced to a very great extent. I know and understand one side of the Disability Pensions Act, and that no matter what is done by any medical board there are bound to be cases where dissatisfaction will arise. A Wound Pensions Act is a simple thing to administer. A man gets a wound on a certain date. Everybody knows that he got the wound on service. His disability assessment is a simple process to a medical man—the same as measuring the side of a wall is to a tradesman. With a Wound Pensions Act you have no great trouble, but when you come to disability, other than wounds, it gives rise to considerable trouble, doubt and, perhaps, suspicion. In a case of tuberculosis nobody can see the bacilli enter a person's body. It is not the same thing as a bullet where the date, the time and the place can be ascertained. It is the same with other diseases of a medical nature. The assessment of time, and the time factor, comes into all these Bills. I would like Deputies to understand that. It may explain a lot of the suspicions they have with regard to cases not receiving justice.

With regard to disabilities other than wounds, in the case of disabilities arising from service in the National Army and attributable to service between the 1st October, 1924, and the 1st September, 1939, there is no Act to cover them among the whole of the 22 Acts that we have. A great number of people, as well as Deputies, do not understand that. All that they know is "here is the case of a poor ex-soldier who was a fit man and is now a dying man from tuberculosis, and it may be he developed that tuberculosis in the Army". If he acquired that tuberculosis in the Army between the 1st October, 1924, the date of the establishment of the force, and the 1st September, 1939, there is no Act to cover him. That has got to be remedied. That will answer a great number of the cases around which there are doubts.

With regard to disability, a disability due to disease is only pensionable if it is over a certain percentage. That percentage of disability may, in the opinion of Deputies, be too high. Obviously a man will be certified by the National Health Insurance people as unfit for work who would be suffering from a disability of less than 50 per cent., but he is not pensionable under these Acts for disability, other than wounds, except his disability is a minimum of 50 per cent.

With regard to the medical men administering these Acts, I would ask Deputies to remember that, in the first place, they are medical men, and that one of the things that direct persons to take up the profession of medicine rather than some other trade or profession is that they have humanitarian instincts—perhaps they are a little bit softer in certain directions than their neighbour and have, perhaps, an oversympathetic outlook with regard to human illness and suffering. These awards with regard to the disability Act are made by two medical people that I have experience of. One of them in particular I know intimately. They certainly would not do any injustice to any stricken person looking for justice. A great number of cases are assessed and medically ruled on by the most reputable members of the medical profession in the different counties— not by a board sitting here in Dublin but a board sitting here and acting on the reports received from such types of men.

Deputies before they even fear that there is any injustice being done with regard to these particular sections of the Act, must remember that the Acts are tightly worded and that the disability must have been acquired within a certain narrow interval and that, having been acquired within that certain narrow interval, it must have been either directly attributable to service or aggravated by service. These are the principal factors, and it would be impossible to expect laymen to properly assess and properly grasp them. I would ask Deputies, when they are dealing with cases under these particular Acts, to accept it from me that the whole outlook with regard to the administration of these Acts is human, that if the dice is loaded in any direction it is loaded in favour of the applicant, and that if the degree of disability is under the amount which carries a pension, well, there is a silver lining to every cloud. If I am afraid that I am 80 per cent. disabled and I go before a responsible reputable medical board and they say to me: "You are only 30 per cent. disabled; you have a good prospect of life", well, I go away six foot high.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. Tuesday, the 4th May, 1948.