Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jul 1949

Vol. 117 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide new rates of pensions for officers and soldiers disabled by wound or injury after the passing of this Bill. The position at the moment is that, for example, in the case of 100 per cent. disablement the rate of pension payable to a soldier under the 1927 Act is 26/- a week. This rate was increased to 42/- a week by the Act of 1943 for soldiers wounded during the emergency. Since the end of the emergency, that is, the 3rd September, 1946, the only rate applicable was the 26/- a week payable under the Act of 1927, so that it became necessary to review the whole position. This Bill now increases the rate to 50/- a week for soldiers wounded after the passing of this Bill and leaves the soldiers the same rates of increased marriage pension payable under the Act of 1946. It will be seen, therefore, that there is a period from the 3rd of September, 1946, to the date of the passing of this Bill when the soldier wounded during that period will not be entitled either to the 42/- a week of the 1943 Act or the 50/- a week of this Bill, but to the 26/- a week of the 1927 Act. That gap, however, will be covered in a later Bill which will deal with an increase in pensions payable under the Act of 1927, that is, under the pensions scheme for which we introduced a Supplementary Estimate half an hour ago.

The second important object of this Bill—Section 9—is to extend the date of application for medals for the purpose of special allowances. That date under the Act of 1946 was the 31st of December, 1946. Now it is extended to six months after the passing of this Bill. There are at present about 3,613 late applications and as soon as this Bill becomes law the necessary forms will be sent without undue delay to all the persons concerned.

Another purpose of this Bill—Sections 8 and 10—is to extend the provisions of the Army Pension Acts to nurses and to officers and men of the First Line Reserve. Hitherto, neither nurses nor reservists, except during the emergency, came within the ordinary peace-time Acts. They will now be entitled to the same rights as the ordinary regular officer or soldier. Further, the Bill—Section 11—empowers the Minister to formulate a pension or compensation scheme for the Second Line Reserve and this will be put in train immediately.

Provision is also made in this Bill— Section 7—for the dependents of unmarried officers or soldiers who are killed or who die from wounds attributable to service. If the relative was totally or mainly dependent on the deceased an allowance will be payable, but if the dependence was only partial a gratuity will be payable. In the case of a soldier the test of the dependency will be the contribution of a voluntary allotment from his pay.

The sections just outlined may be described as general in character in that they relate to groups or classes rather than to individuals. Experience in the administration of the Acts has revealed, however, that some sections are so tightly drawn, or some words so rigidly defined, that they inflict undue hardship in particular cases, and, therefore, the Bill in several sections attempts to remedy this defect, and to remove the hardship. Thus the Seventh Schedule of the 1927 Act limits to four the number of children in respect of whom allowances could be paid, but this limitation is abolished by Section 6, sub-section (4) of this Bill. Again the term "marriage allowance" used in the Acts is so rigidly defined in Defence Force Regulations that a widower soldier with, perhaps, many orphans was deprived of a marriage pension under the Acts because although he was in receipt of children's allowance, that allowance was not technically marriage allowance. Moreover, if a soldier thus circumstanced was killed or died from wounds while serving, his children would not have been entitled to an allowance. This defect is now removed by sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 6 of the Bill, which in effect extends the term marriage allowance so as to include children's allowance payable under Defence Force Regulations.

During the past 25 years six persons have forfeited their pensions under Section 11 of the 1923 Act in that while on pension they were convicted of a crime or offence for which they were sentenced to imprisonment for any term exceeding three months, and two pensions were made forfeit by the Minister on grounds of disgraceful conduct. Hitherto no power existed to restore the forefeiture but the occasion of this Bill has been taken, by Section 1, to vest in the Minister, with the assent of the Minister for Finance, power to restore such pension or allowance.

Finally, Section 12 is designed to meet some cases of great hardship which have arisen in connection with the administration of special allowances. As the Acts stand at present a person's claim is finally determined if the applicant dies after the grant of an allowance by the Minister for Defence but before the Minister for Finance has assented to the grant. Seven successful applicants died in such circumstances, with the result that their relatives were deprived of sums ranging from £18 in one case to £150 in another. That position is remedied in this Bill, and by giving the provision retrospective effect to the 1st January, 1947, the relatives of the seven dead applicants will receive the moneys due on foot of the awards.

This Bill aims at improving, to some extent, the conditions mentioned in the Acts referred to in Section 1. From time to time we have heard, or received complaints in respect of one aspect or another of some of these Acts. This Bill is now going a long way towards removing some, at least, of the causes of complaint. Section 2, which deals with the forfeiture of pension, covers a matter in which I was very interested and which I brought to the attention of the Minister in this House on a couple of occasions. It appears to me, however, that, so far as forfeiture of pensions is concerned, the Bill is confined mainly to Army personnel and that it will not, in fact, affect persons who forfeited their pensions under the 1934 Act unless that matter is also covered by a Supplementary Estimate or by some provision that the Minister may have in mind for a future Bill. To my mind, the forfeiture of a pension in these cases was, to some extent, unjust, because, as I mentioned on a former occasion, if a man committed a criminal offence for which he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the judge dealing with the case dealt with it wholly on the assumption that the imprisonment was the full punishment of the crime with which the man was charged. In many cases he was unaware of the fact that the man was a pensioner or was entitled to a certain sum of money and that that sum of money would be forfeited in certain circumstances, such as his being sentenced to three months' imprisonment or for any term in excess of that period.

To my mind that was very unfair, inasmuch as not only a term of imprisonment was inflicted on the individual but a fine was also imposed. That was a matter that was never given very serious consideration by those responsible for the drafting of that particular section. I welcome the fact that Section 2 now covers at least that particular phase of pensioners' rights. I should like to know if it is being made retrospective. I think the Minister probably, together with the Minister for Finance, can go back over a period and restore pensions. I hope that is so because it would to some extent remove an injustice that has existed.

I am also pleased to see that the question of false statements is being dealt with because I am pretty certain a number of pensions have been secured by individuals as a result of false statements. I think the penalty for making such statements was formerly £5 and that is now being increased to £25. A £25 penalty is probably severe. There is also, I see, at the discretion of the court the possibility of imprisonment. It rests with the court, of course, to decide whether the fine of £25 plus imprisonment will be inflicted. Personally, I rather feel that when people are coming before the various boards to which they have to make their case the greatest deterrent would be for the chairman of the board to warn them of the existence of this particular section because outside of that I do not think it will ever be enforced but the warning might have a salutary effect.

The provision regarding marriage pensions and allowances is also to my mind a step forward. It makes it possible not alone for the individual to secure a pension but it also ensures that the limitation which formerly existed of, I think, four children will not exist in the future. That is very useful.

Generally speaking, as far as I can see, the Bill is one that I am prepared to welcome.

With regard to special allowances and the extension of the date to six months after the passing of the Bill for applying for medals, that is all to the good. I wonder, however, if the Minister has given any consideration to the appeal which I made to him on a former occasion in respect of the enforcement of the means test. He will remember that I quoted a case for him which to my mind was one of considerable hardship where a sister supported her brother. She could only do that as a result of going out and working but yet the officer computing the means test valued that support at 23/-. As a result, instead of receiving 30/- which the Act of 1943 provided, that individual received 7/-. I would like if the Minister could do something about easing, with regard to this particular allowance, the means test which is enforced in respect of old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. After all, these are individuals whose service in the national cause brought about the disability, disablement or incapacity from which they now suffer and for that reason I imagine that they should be given special consideration. I should mention that I brought this matter before the late Government and I had almost secured agreement to some form of action to alleviate the position of individuals in such a situation.

I take it that Section 11, which deals with the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and the Sluagh Muire, is merely making permanent what was formerly contained only in emergency legislation. The Reserve and the 2nd Line which is the Fórsa Cosanta and the Sluagh Muire will have this legislation protecting them.

I am wondering if there is retrospection with regard to Section 12 dealing with gratuities to the relatives of certain deceased persons and with the question of allotment in respect of the parents of a soldier. The parents of a soldier can only secure an allowance or pension if the soldier has been providing in some form or other an allotment to the dependents. I would suggest to the Minister that in a number of cases young men serving in the Army whose parents are alive endeavour to further their own interests by educating themselves. Instead of receiving an allotment from them, their parents are in fact helping them to secure grinds or tuition of one kind or another in the hope that at some time they may be able to get a commission in the Army or sit for a Civil Service examination. Only in a case where a soldier has made an allotment in respect of his parents will those parents receive a dependents' allowance in the event of that boy's death. I would like if the Minister would examine that aspect of the case and make it possible for parents who lose such a boy to receive some form of compensation. I am pretty certain that the Workmen's Compensation Act would cover such a case when the boy loses his life in the course of his employment.

Again I would congratulate the Minister on bringing in the various improvements in this Bill.

I follow Deputy Traynor in congratulating the Minister on the introduction of this Bill which follows the pattern to some extent. Taken with the scheme we have already improved, the same principle seems to run through this Bill. I am very pleased that the Minister has taken the power with the consent of the Minister for Finance to restore pensions and allowances that have been forfeited for one reason or another. There have been cases of forfeiture that have been exceedingly harsh and it is right that there should be this form of appeal, this reconsideration which may be given to the matter, so as to enable the Minister to restore the pension. It is a very good provision and I am glad to see it in the Bill.

As to the limitation in Section 7 in regard to dependents, the dependents will be treated, in the case of a soldier, in relation to the making of an allotment. There are cases of allotment to parents, of course, but, generally speaking, the allotment is to a wife, and, unless things have changed in the past few years, the number of allocations of pay to parents, or any person other than a wife, must be very small and to that extent the section limits unduly. Perhaps on the next Stage the Minister might be agreeable to widen the section somewhat by removing that restriction.

I did not have an opportunity of looking closely into the effect of Section 10 which brings in the First Line Reserve. Sub-section (2) says:

"(a) The expression `the forces' shall be construed as including the Reserve of Officers—First Line and the Reserve of Men—First Line and

(b) the word `soldier' shall be construed as including a man of the Reserve of men—First Line."

As I say, I did not have an opportunity of relating that section to the Acts as a whole, but my present fear is that the limitation of this measure to the First Line Reserve of Officers and First Line Reserve of Men may impose a hardship on members of the other classes of Reserve, classes A and B, the Volunteer Reserve.

They are all one now.

At the moment, yes, but it may be that members of this force would have a claim under this Act, if the limitation were not there. The Minister will be able to put me right on that when concluding, because I have not had an opportunity of considering that aspect at all.

Section 10 says:

"The expression ‘the forces' shall be construed as excluding the Reserve..."

save as provided otherwise in the Act, and then there is the provision bringing in the First Line of Reserve of Officers and First Line Reserve of Men. It was always endeavoured to interpret the word "forces" as referring only to the regular Army. Under the 1923 Act, "Defence Forces" included the Reserve and "forces" was limited to the regular Army. That has been followed over the past 26 years in the Acts and Regulations, but this section gives a different meaning to the word "forces". I think probably that might be altered, so that we could adhere to the interpretation of forces and Defence Forces which has been followed for the past quarter of a century.

I notice that Section 13 provides for deductions in respect of public claims from pensions, allowances, gratuities and compensations. Some such provision is quite normal in these Acts, but sub-section (2) states that payment of the pension allowance, gratuity or compensation, may be withheld until the amount of the deduction is ascertained. I can see some danger there. The Department may make a claim on an individual and the individual may dispute the claim. In that event, there is only one proper way of having the matter decided, that is, by means of an action in the courts, and I should say that it might be very unfair to withhold payment of a pension until this whole procedure has been gone through. I have come across cases, in practice, where threats to withhold pensions were made. In actual fact, part or the whole of the pension was stopped for a period and it was then discovered that the deduction was entirely illegal and the pension had to be refunded. I am aware of circumstances that would necessitate the introduction of a clause such as this, but I think the authority contained in that section ought not be used in practice for the purposes of forcing a person to admit a liability which he has not got. However, reading the section, I can see ways by which the difficulty can be got round, and once there is that loophole in it, it is probably safe enough.

I am glad the Minister has been able to introduce the scheme we have just passed and to introduce this Bill. If, as Deputies, we were entitled to put down amendments which would increase the charge on public funds, there are quite a number of amendments I might suggest to him, but we are limited in that regard by the rules of the House and probably also by the provisions of the Constitution. In these circumstances, we have to depend on the Minister to bring in the Bills which will provide for these increased pensions. However, I welcome the Bill as improving the position and as falling into line with the pattern of increases that are being made generally. I am sure it will be welcomed also by those persons who will be affected by it.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on honouring the promise of his predecessor by extending the time for applying for medals which are an essential qualification for a special allowance. I was also glad to see the provision in regard to 100 per cent. disability. However, I must say that I was really disappointed that there was no increase in the special allowance. A sum of 30/- is a very small amount these days for a man who has to prove himself incapable of self-support and who has to be practically destitute before he gets that amount. When any increase is going, those who helped in some way to build up the State should not be forgotten. I should like to put that point of view strongly before the Minister. If there is any way in which he can amend this measure by giving the people who are drawing the special allowance an increase he should do so. At the present time it is practically impossible for them to live and to keep their dependents on this amount.

Then there is, in addition, a very severe means test in connection with that allowance. The Minister will remember that I had a Parliamentary question down to him quite recently in regard to the case of an old age pensioner who had an allowance of £10 7s. 6d. a year which was granted because a son had been killed by the Black and Tans. Because of an increase of 2/6 under the Old Age Pensions Act last year this old age pensioner suffers a loss in the total income of over £5. Instead of being of benefit to this old age pensioner, the increase in the old age pension has meant a loss, I think, of £5 10s. per year. Having put a question of that nature down to the Minister one would have thought that there would have been some provision in an Act such as this to increase the means test. For the life of me I cannot see why there should be a means test in this measure of £40 a year and, in the case of the old age pension, a means test of £52 a year. That is not all. Under this Bill, in the case of anybody claiming a special allowance who has a boy or girl under 18 years of age working, the full earnings of that boy or girl are counted as means. Now, in the case of the old age pension, only the profit of the earnings of people under 18 years of age will be taken into account as means. I suggest that in a case like this the procedure is entirely wrong. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to look into those points. After all, it is very unfair that the whole of the earnings of a boy or girl under 18 years of age should be taken into account under this measure whereas under the other system, only the profit earnings are taken into account.

A case has recently been brought to my notice of a man who has lost both his legs through gangrene. He got the special allowance. He is in the district hospital. His wife went to work and is earning a little over £2 a week. As a result, his special allowance was cut off completely. That is very hard on these people. I put it to that woman that she was only working for the State and not for herself and her husband because she was forfeiting everything she was earning. The fact of the matter is that she is an industrious woman who likes to work.

Another difficulty is that of the man whose application is turned down. He cannot re-apply until 12 months have elapsed. Now a lot of things will happen in regard to a man's means in 12 months. That period should be shortened by at least half. A man may have some little income now and be deprived of it in a couple of months' time. Yet such a man would have to wait 12 months before he could re-apply. Similarly in the case of a disability.

As the Minister is aware, the extension of the period of application for medals has been delayed for a very long time and I wonder if he would go a small way towards meeting this case and making it retrospective to at least the beginning of this year. Some people have been waiting for this for a couple of years. They are very badly off. I should be glad if the Minister would find it possible to make it retrospective.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on Section 12. I have in mind a very sad case which could come under this section. It is that of a man who was dead two days before the award came, and his wife could not get the money which was coming to him.

Let me conclude by again appealing to the Minister to try and increase the special allowance from the present rate of 30/-.

Mr. A. Byrne

I, with other Members of the House, join in the congratulations extended to the Minister for his efforts to improve the lot of the Army men and to improve the lot of the ex-Army men who served in the days gone by. Deputy McGrath drew the Minister's attention to certain cases where the means test is causing hardship. I would make an earnest appeal that where there are payments to ex-Army men or ex-I.R.A. men the means test should be withdrawn entirely. I have known instances where, when members of a family got a very small job with small wages, the pensioner instantly lost a few shillings off the pension which he had earned through his service.

The Minister is also aware—and I would ask him to stop me immediately if this point has been dealt with—that several times I and other Deputies raised questions in this House in regard to the men who went out from 1945 up to 31st August, 1946. They went out at the lower rate of pension —at the same time expecting that they would receive the increase. They were given to understand that the increase was for N.C.O.s and men who had completed 21 years' pensionable service. I have here a letter from a leader of one of the organisations which looks after ex-servicemen. It explains clearly what the men had hoped for. It reads as follows:—

"Thanks for text of Army Pensions Bill. It is to be regretted, however, that the Minister has made no move in regard to the N.C.O.s and men who were encouraged to leave after the publication of the White Paper in 1945. As you are aware, N.C.O.s and men were advised to go out on pension, as the age limit for the new Army was 32 years of age for N.C.O.s and men.

As an encouragement for these men to go out it was understood that their pension was being increased. The men who went out from 1945, up to 31st August, 1946, went on the lower rate of pension, at the same time expecting that they would receive the increase as they were given to understand that the increase was for N.C.O.s and men who completed 21 years' pensionable service.

The Government at the time dated the increase as from 2nd September, 1946, which meant that about 300 N.C.O.s and men who had gone did not benefit. At the same time the officers who went with them received the increase, being covered by six months' leave of absence. Since this Government has been in office, we have got no decision on the matter, only that our case is being considered. Every other case has been dealt with—teachers, civil servants, ex-R.I.C., and the present Army Bill dealing with disability pensions.

Apart from seeking this increase, there is the moral injustice, as we consider that we were led up the garden path. You, sir, have asked the Ministers in both Governments to settle this question and the ex-servicemen appreciate your efforts on our behalf. We would feel grateful if you could manage to fit in a question, before the Recess, requesting the Minister to give a decisive answer one way or the other.

Again thanking you for all you have done for the ex-servicemen,

Faithfully yours,

J——P——T.

I would ask the Minister whether he has done anything in accordance with his promise. Other members asked this question several times within the last year or two. These few hundred men still feel aggrieved because they went out—and were encouraged to go out— a month or two before the new increases came into being. I would again appeal on their behalf to the Minister, who has done so much and done it so well. I believe he will do better. Having done so much for the Army men, he ought not to leave 300 men, who served the Army well, feeling aggrieved in the way they feel at present.

Major de Valera

This matter of the dead-line of the 2nd September, 1946, is one of some importance. I think I was the first person to raise this matter in the House in the time of the previous Government. I do not intend to repeat the general case to be made for it, which will be found already in the Official Reports, somewhere around the Estimates for 1947 or some similar occasion in that year. The important point is that, from about the fall of Germany onwards, from the end of the war in the West, when it was apparent that the war was ending soldiers were encouraged to leave the Forces. I think that applied to some officers also. Efforts were being made by the Government at the time, and the staff had been directed to make what preparations could be made, to find employment for soldiers going out —and particularly for regular soldiers who were going out on age limit or service completed at that time. Certain vacancies were occurring and men —both N.C.O.s, officers and men— were encouraged to go into them and they went. Many of those men, both to my personal knowledge and the knowledge of other Deputies in the House who know something about the Army, were some of the very best that were in the Army. In fact, it was because of their personal qualifications, their characters, that it was relatively easier for those men to get a job at that time. Many of those men went before the 2nd September, 1946. However, they found themselves later in the position that, having gone out— to some extent as the result of indirect pressure, shall I call it, or suggestions, prompted by considerations of gradual demobilisation, so as to avoid a rush— these men found that they would not have the benefits that accrued to those who hung on until later. Anyone who was there at that time will remember that, during that period in 1945 and the early part of 1946, anyone who had anywhere to go was encouraged to go. Consequently, I think there is a case to be made for this and it has been made already by a number of Deputies.

It is very hard to see on what basis other than an administrative one there can be justification for hitting that line. I have in mind, as I speak, some N.C.O.s who were literally the very best that the Army had and who had given very faithful service over a number of years. They went out to jobs, such as that of dock policemen, before that date and, consequently, there is a differentiation from people who went out after that date.

Would the Deputy state how it is relevant to this Bill?

Major de Valera

It is relevant, in this sense, that we had all hoped that a Bill of this nature would make some provision for these people.

The Deputy was not here when a Supplementary Estimate was introduced dealing with the type of case he mentions.

Major de Valera

I was following on Deputy Byrne and I presumed that the matter was still open.

Deputy Byrne led you astray.

Major de Valera

Then may I take it that, on the other Estimate, these soldiers are provided for and will be put on the same basis?

May I say to Deputies Byrne and de Valera that it was outlined that there would be another Bill in the autumn dealing with pensions. The Supplementary Estimate was put through to-day.

Major de Valera

There will be another Bill dealing with Army pensions to cover that? In that case, I do not intend to follow it further, beyond saying that, if the Minister will put that matter right, he will be doing a very good job of work. These men certainly deserve consideration.

This Bill undoubtedly removes a number of grievances which we all have met with in the course of the last few years, grievances which arose under the interpretation of the existing legislation. It is certainly to be welcomed in that respect. I would like to congratulate the Minister particularly on Section 9, which extends the date for the application for medals, to bring some of the now rather old people who fought for the establishment of our freedom into line for the special allowances. There is one phrase in that section which I think may be stereotyping the thing rather than settling it.

I had a case last year of a man who had a special allowance and who was an old age pensioner and whose wife also was an old age pensioner. His wife died; and he was immediately stopped the old age pension for her. Under the Act, he was entitled to an increase in his special allowance, but he found he could not get that until 12 months had elapsed from the last revision. As far as I am aware, that was only a Departmental regulation up to this. The Minister is now putting it into Section 9, line 29, setting out distinctly that the special allowance shall be subject to periodic review not more frequently than once a year. This particular man had to suffer that loss for six weeks, but it is quite possible that a man might have to suffer it for 11 or 11½ months. In the case of people like this who have given service to the nation and who are now on a very small pittance it is not fair that the regulations should make them suffer a financial loss. We are now putting it actually into legislation, as I see it, and I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that some means should be found by which recipients of these very small allowances should not be at a financial loss owing to the administration of the Act.

I am very sorry that there does not seem to be any provision in this Bill to ease the means test which is in force in regard to these special allowances. In some cases it seems to be working very grievously against the recipients. The Minister should give further consideration to that aspect of the matter and, if he does, I am sure he will find himself in sympathy with that view and find some way of dealing with it. The allowances are very meagre, and so far I have not seen anything about increasing them in these cases and in the case of Army service pensions as they are being increased in other cases. I hope that when the Minister does bring in the Bill dealing with Army service pensions he will consider the question of the special allowances. I know that some of these people are in a very bad way and surely it is not too much to ask that these people who gave service to the nation should be placed above the starvation level in their declining years.

The Army Pensions Bill, 1949, having received commendation, approval and a general welcome from the ex-Minister for Defence, Deputy Traynor, nothing remains for us to do except to join in the chorus of praise accorded to the Minister. There is one aspect of the matter, however, on which I should like to touch very briefly. It has reference to the means test. I am sure each Deputy could elaborate the points made by some of the Opposition speakers in reference to the hardship suffered by pensioners under the means test regulations. It struck me that a very good case was argued against the means test, inadvertently perhaps, by the Minister for Finance to-day. I think I should draw the fact to his attention and it may cause a re-examination of this question of the means test. When we were dealing with the Superannuation and Retired Allowances Supplementary Estimates, the House will recall that the Minister for Finance was urged to establish a minimum pension of £50. He expressed, I take it, sympathy with this idea were it confined to a rather small class of teachers and those who came under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. But, in regard to Army pensions, he stated, if I recollect correctly, that no such sympathy could be shown as the Army pensions were not granted for the purpose of support, for the purpose of enabling a person to improve his livelihood. They were, he said, granted in recognition of service rendered to the nation.

These were not Army pensions but military service pensions.

I see no distinction. In a period of time, one Irish Army, I assume, had rendered as valiant service to the nation as another.

I was making the distinction that military service pensions are for what we call pre-Truce service. Army pensions are a disability matter in connection with Defence Force service since the Truce.

I understand the distinction that can be made in the Ministerial mind.

Does not this Bill deal with disability pensions?

Yes. It appears to me anyway that that would be a basis for re-examination of the case. I can see the point that the Minister for Finance could not agree with that. But, undoubtedly, the time should come when, in consonance with the larger view of things on a basis of social welfare, the idea of a means test should be a thing of the past and I would urge that the Minister for Finance should take a progressive view and be a pioneer and have the glory of being the first, in regard to the regulations administered by his Department, to have this means test either minimised or abolished for ever.

This code is known as the Army Pensions Acts. The Army Pensions Acts originated in 1923 and they deal mainly with wound and disability pensions. In the public mind, Army pensions mean military service pensions. It is very hard to get the public to distinguish between this code and military service pensions. It would be well if this code was known as the disability pension code. I welcome the provisions of Section 2 of the Bill. The Minister should see that the same provisions apply to military service pensions. Section 9 extends the date for applications for medals by members of the I.R.A. and I welcome that provision also. Persons permanently disabled and incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity of body or mind, as the code lays down, can apply now for the allowances provided for under the Act. I do not think Section 12 is anything new in the Army pensions legislation. That has already been provided for under other Acts.

I wonder will the provision in Section 12 apply to a person who is granted an allowance under this Bill and by reason of the fact that he was permanently detained in hospital and that there was an assessment of £40 placed on his means. He was deprived of £40, but that provision was withdrawn by the present Minister and so that assessment of £40 is not to apply in future cases. In the particular case I have in mind, the investigation officer assessed the means of the person concerned at £5 a year, with £40 because he was permanently detained in hospital. He was a married man. The balance up to £85 was paid for one year. The man died and his wife is still living. I wonder does Section 12 enable the Minister to pay the amount that was withheld by the State in those circumstances?

As regards Section 13, it operates in this way. If an applicant for a special allowance or a disability pension owes the State a sum of money, the State is taking power to hold up the payment of the pension until there is an inquiry. If the amount due is more than the current amount of the pension, it can withhold the full pension until the debt is paid. Why should the State take authority to do that when the person concerned must, of necessity, be incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity of body or mind? I think the Minister should drop that provision in the section. If such a person owes a debt to the State, well the State can well afford to let it go.

I do not see anything in the Bill which enables the Minister to have the ceiling figure in the means test raised where allowances are paid in respect of members of the forces who were killed or died on service, and whose parents were in receipt of an allowance. It may be that some such provision will be included in some future Bill. I am drawing attention to it so that it will get consideration. I think that, with the exception of the point that I have mentioned in regard to Section 13, the Bill will meet with the approval of members of the House.

I sympathise with Deputies who were confused about the very many Army Pensions Acts which have been passed under different names —Army Pensions Acts, Military Services Pensions Acts, Defence Forces Pensions Acts and others. I do not mind confessing that, at the moment, I could not speak with any certainty of the total number of different Acts dealing with the Forces as a whole. This debate strayed in and out through several Acts that are not before the House.

With regard to points that do strictly relate to this Bill, I think it was Deputy Traynor who referred to the section which gives power to restore forfeited pensions, and asked, I suppose in view of the small numbers concerned, if we were taking power to restore pensions forfeited under the Military Service Pensions Act. This Bill refers only to Army pensions, and so I can only take power under it to restore forfeited Army pensions. Under the pensions amending legislation foreshadowed for the Autumn, power will be taken to restore forfeited military service pensions.

With regard to the section referred to by Deputy Hilliard and other Deputies which gives power to withhold pensions until claims by the State against a potential pensioner have been satisfied, I can say that such a power has been given in every Act passed since 1927. This is an amending Bill, and is merely carrying the same power in it. It is, I think, a normal provision, provided that it is not abused by undue delay in dealing with claims. There is nothing unjust in it. I certainly never had any evidence or any complaint to the effect that this power has ever been used in the past so as to induce a person waiting for a pension to accept liability for a debt that was not, in fact, a debt. That certainly never has come under my notice.

In connection with gratuities to dependents other than the wife and children of a deceased soldier, there was always, in all Acts, a very clear obligation on the claimant to establish dependency. Dependency, total or partial, had to be proved, and the onus of doing so was on the dependent who was claiming. It was always, of course, customary for a soldier to make an allotment out of his pay to his wife. The machinery of the paying and the accounting department was placed at the service of the soldier for such a purpose. Within the last two years, that machinery has been placed at the service of the soldier for the purpose of making an allotment out of his pay to any other dependent, or partially dependent relative, other than his wife.

Deputy Cowan raised a point with regard to the first line A and B Reserves. The A and B Reserves have been amalgamated into the first line and the particular section the Deputy is referring to is merely extending the benefits.

I understand that, but the point I am not clear on is this. If this section is passed in its present form, it may operate to cause a hardship to people who belong to the A and B Reserve, who are now discharged and who are not in the first line at the moment.

I think the Deputy may rest easy. That is not so.

I have not examined it very closely, as I have stated, and I was not altogether clear on the point.

Deputy McGrath and other Deputies spoke with special reference to the means test as applied to the people in receipt of special allowances. In that connection all I can say is that it is never good policy to spur a willing horse. The regulations under which the special allowance is granted were there as part of the Act of 1946. My predecessor and myself, in our time, have been particularly alert and awake to any complaints made with regard to any injustice arising out of the application of the means test. The only change made in the application of the means test since 1946, step by step, has been in the direction of relaxing its application.

But you cannot relax the means test to the point of boring a hole through the parent Act. The parent Act was regarded by Deputies in all sections of the House as a particularly worthy and generous measure. It was not an Act to grant so much money to a person unable to work who had a medal. It was not in the form of a pension, where you gave so much money to a person because he was in a certain condition of health and had rendered service. It was an Act which enabled the Minister for Defence to bring the income of people to a certain named figure in the event of their being single, and a higher figure if they were married. In other words, the means test in some shape or form is implicit and is contained in the Act and cannot be withdrawn by any regulations.

How exactly the means test is operated is a matter of machinery and triangular regulations. Any change taken with regard to that has been to reduce the incidence of the means test in so far as it is pressing unduly on any particular person.

Does the Minister not think that the means test should be decreased to the same amount as in the case of old age pensions, because of the increased cost of living to those people since the Act was passed in 1946?

Does the Deputy mean that the allowance should be increased?

That the means test should be decreased.

It was fixed in 1946.

As regards all the pensions which we are dealing with— old age pensions, Civil Service and military—we are increasing the rates of pension where those rates were fixed prior to the cost of living going up as a result of the emergency. The rates in this particular Bill were rates fixed and approved of by the Dáil in 1946 in the light of the high cost of living and in the consciousness of that cost of living as it was at that date.

It has gone up a lot since.

In all other cases that is the standard year. The general attitude of both Departments with regard to the investigation and with regard to the application of the means test is to be as lenient as possible to the applicant. Cases were raised in the past, and it was mentioned by Deputy Hilliard, that if people were in hospital, people in receipt of the special allowance, or in a sanatorium, the appropriate value of their maintenance in the hospital or the sanatorium was counted as means and, consequently, they forfeited the whole of the special allowance, or a considerable portion of it. In that respect— and it is a fairly big item—the condition governing the means test was removed, so that there is no reduction because of hospital, sanatorium or other institutional treatment.

As regards the case Deputy Traynor referred to, that type of case, too, has been removed from being penalised by the means test and that particular case is now, I am informed, in receipt of an allowance. The general inclination of the Departments concerned in dealing with these people in receipt of special allowances is to be as sympathetic as possible and, as far as I am a cog in that particular piece of machinery, my outlook is to be as easy as possible with them and reduce their pension by the minimum.

Will the conditions for the award of a medal in the future be altered in any way?

No. All we do in that respect is to extend the date. The conditions are the same.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Top
Share