Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."— (Minister for Defence.)

Mr. B. Maguire

I hope that the Minister, in view of the representations which have been made to him from Deputies in all parts of the House, will see his way to widen the scope of this Bill so that it may be possible to meet the reasonable and just claims of those people who so far have been unable to sustain their claims for pensions before the Pensions Board. There should be no limitation on the number of people who wish to put their claims before the tribunal that is to be established or on the amount of money needed to meet their just claims. I would hope, too, that the Bill would enable a fairly liberal interpretation to be given to what "active service" means, so that people justly entitled to it may receive from the State such an award as the public would like to see them receive. It would be a dreadful thing if the sum of money involved was to be the deciding factor rather than the just claims of the people concerned.

It is a well-known fact that the war that was fought for the independence of this country was not won solely by those who took part in ambushes or in major engagements or who used rifles effectively. That war had to have the active support of other people who were unable to find a gun. If they could get possession of one, they would be quite willing to use it for the liberation of their country. Those who joined the Volunteer Force and the I.R.A. were at all times willing to carry out the orders given to them and to assist, in an active way, in the campaign that was conducted in those years. It has never been contended that the active service units which participated in major engagements alone won the war or, indeed, could have done so. Therefore, I suggest that a more liberal interpretation of "active service" than that which hitherto has obtained is necessary if justice is to be done.

I had hoped that this Bill would have embraced a much clearer definition of "active service". I suggest to the Minister that it would mean saving the board which is to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act wasting a lot of time if the public were made aware now of what essential active service means. I know it is difficult to determine that. I also know it is difficult to embrace that wider range of claimants which I have referred to—I mean non-combatants. These were people who did not participate in an active way in major engagements or in the exchange of shots, but, surely, there should be some power in the Bill to enable those who were just as useful as those on active service to have their claims considered. I suggest that it would save a considerable amount of time if what "active service" means were outlined in advance. If that were done, the people I refer to would know in advance what they had to meet. They would be saved from anticipating something coming their way which, in reality, would not come.

I would like to see this matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The hearing of these claims should not be dragged out over a number of years. If there is a clear definition of what active service means given the people concerned will know whether they come within it or not, and so will not waste their time making applications. The claims of those who are entitled to pensions should be dealt with quickly. There should be no delay that, possibly, can be avoided. I have had discussions with the Minister on this over the last year or more. I have found him very sympathetic. I think he can be assured that any ambitions he has in mind will be supported by the House and the country. I suggest to him that he should adopt a much wider plan than that set out in the Bill for settling once and for all this vexed problem. The present Bill does not contain the extensions which are necessary to settle it. If the Minister puts the Bill through with its present limitations he will not only be perpetuating the discontent that exists at present but will be accentuating it. The present plan, I think, is too narrow. I think the time has come when a national effort should be made to settle in a generous way the claims of those who feel that they are entitled to some recompense for their efforts. Inside the limitations which this Bill imposes, we will get only poor results.

I am sorry this Bill was ever introduced. It should be extended considerably from its present scope. If the Minister is agreeable to extend it so as to include every person who can make a reasonable claim to useful active service during the period, well and good. There should be a wide interpretation given to active service —as wide as possible. Let those who are entitled to reward under any tribunal or court make their claim and let us never mind the consequences. Finance is not as important as justice, and the day this Assembly puts money above justice, then the morals and the standing of this country will be lost.

I recommend a wide interpretation of active service, something far beyond the provisions in this Bill. I submit that the Minister has a mandate to do that, apart from his own wish. From personal contact with some of those men and with my constituents generally, I know that he has a mandate to settle this problem in a big way. He certainly has a mandate from the House to apply justice to those men without any regard to the financial aspect. Let justice prevail beyond all mercenary considerations.

Mr. Killilea

I welcome this long-promised measure, though I must say I am somewhat dissatisfied with some of its sections. I agree with Deputy Maguire regarding the definition of active service. When the Act of 1934 was introduced it was very hard for any body of people who might be set up to investigate the services rendered by men over a long period and to decide how they could bring them in under any legislation because of the fact that numbers of the men who were engaged on active service had forgotten a lot of particulars relating to the different engagements in which they took part, and the part they took at certain times when they were out to achieve the freedom of this country. If the Act of 1934 failed in any particular respect, it was because it was not an easy job to put an interpretation on active service.

If the Minister wants to show that he is serious with this Bill, there are two things he will have to do. He will have to make some effort to define active service and he should not have his mind so made up when introducing this Bill that he can practically name the number of applicants who will qualify under it or the amount he expects will be made available. As was pointed out by other Deputies, if this Bill is to do what we expect it will do—that is, settle the claims of a number of people who were border-line cases—until their claims are heard I do not know that we can decide how many there will be and what it will cost.

I suggest, in relation to the investigation of those claims, that the Referee and the court should go on circuit through the provinces. My reason for suggesting that is that the people whose claims have already been turned down have had considerable difficulty in producing evidence of their activities, and if the Referee and the court go on circuit these people will have an opportunity, without very much expense, of taking in those who may be able to certify or help them to clear up their claims.

I notice in the Bill that the right of appeal to the Minister has been transferred to the Referee. I do not think that is very much of a change, because, from my experience in dealing with the Minister in days gone by, although the appeal was made to him it was the Referee who decided whether or not the person who made the claim could be heard again. There is not very much of a change in that regard.

There have been references made to political discrimination. I think the 1934 Act clarified that position. I was very sorry to hear the statement made yesterday by Deputy Giles. I think it was one of the most disgraceful statements ever made in this Parliament. It might perhaps be as well that no time would ever be made available in the House for such disgraceful statements. The Deputy referred to a certain organisation and he said that persons whom he described as Irregulars lived by robbing banks. I think it is the Minister's intention to get away from all that.

Through the 1934 Act we made an effort to get away from that particular type of tripe. Our efforts at that time were clearly demonstrated inasmuch as we got into the different brigade committees that were established all over the country men who, because of the different sides they took in days gone by, had not up to that time recognised one another in the public streets. After that Act was passed we got them together and they were prepared to help one another, and, in clarifying the position regarding active service, they gave every help and assistance. I am sorry Deputy Giles tried to throw a spanner into the works once more. I suppose we can never get shut of that particular type of mentality, but it is a consolation to know that there are not many people prepared to agree with him.

There is one section I strongly object to and that is Section 3, which says that there may be deducted from any pension under the 1924 or 1934 Acts any moneys due or owing to a State authority by the person to whom a pension is payable. Then the section tells us that these include a Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the Irish Land Commission. The Commissioners of Public Works, if they have any claims against an individual for rent or anything else, have ways and means of collecting that money, and I do not think it is fair for the Minister to offer a pension with one hand and take it away with the other. The same applies to the Land Commission. They have adequate ways and means of collecting land annuities, and I do not think the Minister for Defence should act as sheriff for them. I think the Minister would be well advised to delete that section. If there is any money owing to State Departments there are adequate ways and means of collecting it and the Minister for Defence should not be allowed to do it. Even if that were the only thing wrong with this Bill, I think the Minister would have been better advised not to have introduced it at all. I strongly urge upon him the complete removal of Section 3.

A number of difficulties surrounded applicants who were refused pensions. Shortly after the Act of 1934 was introduced these applicants filled up application forms. They were not very particular about getting data or going into detail on these application forms. They filled them up in the belief that these were merely applications and that what they put in the particular form would not have much to do with their cases when they were called upon at a later date to give evidence. As can be easily understood, a large number of people who applied for pensions were not very well educated. Some of them went to legal men here and there and had their forms filled up for them; these legal men, of course, filled up the forms in accordance with the Act and not in accordance with the actual service given by the applicants. A period of six or 12 months then elapsed and the applicants were called upon to give evidence. By that time some of them had got an idea that they might not be called at all. But they were called before the board and questioned and, of course, in a number of cases the questions put to them were similar to those that appeared on the application forms but the replies then given did not bear out fully what actually appeared on the forms. The oral evidence given by them and the information given on the application forms did not agree. I imagine that that militated against their claim.

If the Minister proposes to entertain new applications, I think he should let those people come in again and make their case anew. I know from my own experience that in these investigations there were applicants who believed that unless they took an active part in an ambush or were under fire, they would not qualify for a pension. Now there were men who were vitally essential links in so far as communications were concerned and in so far as outpost duty was concerned. Although they were vitally essential, many of them believed that they could not qualify under the Act because they did not take an "active" part in a particular ambush, or something like that. A man under that impression might put down that he took part in a particular ambush. Of course, when he was questioned as to details he had not got the details and, as a result, he lost his pension. Because of that and because of the general muddle created in the minds of the people who came before the board from time to time, I suggest to the Minister that, if he intends to reopen all their cases, there will be very little use in taking the evidence they gave when filling up their application forms originally, the evidence they gave before the board and the evidence that was given by other people on their behalf and all the other conflicting details. The only hope for these people is to have their cases made anew so that they may know exactly where they stand. Their applications should be dealt with under this proposed measure entirely afresh and on the basis of the evidence that they will submit when they are recalled under this particular Bill. I trust the Minister will take the suggestions I have made into consideration when he is bringing in amendments. I strongly urge upon him that Section 3 should be eliminated in toto.

Mr. Hickey

In the past 14 years we have all had a number of complaints made to us from time to time as to the injustice done to certain applicants under the 1934 Act. I think the entire difficulty rests on the extraordinarily narrow interpretation given to "active service". I know men who occupied really dangerous posts, but who could not be said under the Act to be actively engaged in a particular ambush. These were not given a pension because they could not claim they were on active service. I think the definition "active service" should be given a very wide interpretation. These men in these posts played as big a part in achieving freedom as did those who took part in ambushes and so on.

I think that in some cases it would be better to give the applicants a gratuity to enable them to make a fresh start in life rather than award them a small pension over a number of years. I would like to see something done for those men who have so far received no recognition for their services. I know some men and some women who did not make application under either of the old Acts. If they make application now under this proposed measure, I think they should be awarded pensions. The important point, however, is to give as wide an interpretation as possible to the definition of "active service" because that will remove the dissatisfaction that exists at present.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Under the 1934 Act there were a number of border-line cases. It has been said that there are, possibly, 3,000 border-line cases. I join with other Deputies in asking the Minister to define once and for all "active service". As other Deputies have pointed out, a number of excellent volunteers never fired a shot at all—volunteers who would have fired shots and who would have been in an ambush had they got the opportunity. Notwithstanding the success of the volunteer organisation and of the I.R.A., they would not, as a whole, have been so successful were it not for the service rendered by these border-line cases I have referred to. Quite definitely, these men often had to do more work than the men in the fields, in the hills, or in the ambushes. Therefore, while the 1934 Act provided that a person had to have one major engagement, I ask the Minister and the Government to try and settle this question, and not again raise false hopes in the breasts of a number of people who are going to apply, so that they will know definitely beforehand what "active service" means and whether they fulfil the requirements of that interpretation or not.

Over 60,000 persons applied under the 1934 Act. Possibly about 11,000 were successful. You had the remainder claiming that they had done as much, possibly, as some of those who were awarded pensions. You will always have that. The human element will definitely come into it. I urge the Minister to try, if possible, and make a public announcement on all such border-line cases and on what he and his advisers and the Government are going to regard as "active service".

I agree with Deputy Killilea in his statement about military service pensions. I do not think that any Government or any authority should interfere with the military service pension, under Section 3 of this Bill, because, under that section, a Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the Irish Land Commission can make a claim on a military service pension. That type of pension should be a thing apart and no Minister and no Act should interfere with that pension in that particular regard. I may be, possibly, too charitable, but I feel that a military service pension should not be interfered with for reasons of that kind.

I welcome this Bill. I hope it will fill up the wants that were in the 1924 Act—and the 1934 Act only went to satisfy a section. I hope that under this Act justice will be done to people who are definitely entitled to some recognition from this State for the services they have rendered to this country as members of the I.R.A., and who were soldiers of Ireland when there were very few of them, and I hope that this State, even at this late hour, will see that justice is done.

Finally, let me repeat my exhortation to the Minister to define exactly "active service". I appeal to him to settle these questions once and for all so that everybody who was a member of the I.R.A. or a member of the Cumann na mBan will be given some recognition for the services they have rendered to this country and which have made it possible for us to sit in this Assembly.

Mr. Desmond

I support this Bill. It is a pity that members of the Opposition who, in their charity, are advising us and saying that this measure is essential did not do as we are doing now many years ago. There are many men in South Cork and in South West Cork who were entitled to pensions and who, unfortunately, did not get them. It is also true to say that in that area there were men who got pensions and, to put it charitably, it is doubtful if they deserved them. There were cases where applicants knew before they came to Dublin that they were going to get the pension. I need hardly say that I take it that everything is now definitely above board and that all applicants who have a genuine case—and God knows there are many who have a genuine case and who have been deprived of the pension up to the present—will get a fairer hearing under this Bill when it becomes law than they got under the Act of 1934. I should like, if it were possible, that it would not be necessary for these applicants to travel again, at great expense, to Dublin. As was suggested, it would be very handy if the tribunal were on circuit, as it were, and that cases in Cork County, for instance, could be heard down there instead of expecting the people to pay travelling expenses out of their own pockets.

I think it is only fair to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. It will safeguard the rights of men who were denied these rights in the past— even at this late hour—as some members of the Opposition have said. It is a pretty late hour as far as the members of the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned, but it is a pretty early hour from the point of view of this Government. There were other Bills essential to the public interest and yet this Bill was given its proper place at the top of the programme. I sincerely hope these applicants will get fair treatment under this Bill.

Mr. Hilliard

Deputy Desmond presumes that full justice will be done under this Bill to the 66,000 persons who can apply under it. Apparently that is his contention.

Mr. Hickey

You are not serious, are you?

Mr. Hilliard

The Minister has stated in his introductory remarks that the Bill hopes to provide additional pensions for about 2,000 persons. There are 66,000 persons, approximately, who were turned down under both Acts—the 1924 Act and the 1934 Act. It is a fact that during the period of investigations into military service pension claims the majority of the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party spent a long period of their time and energy in giving evidence before a Referee and his committee on military service pension applications because those men held command ranks and other ranks in the army of liberation, the I.R.A., and for no other reason. That is, in my opinion, a very sound reason why the members of this Party, the Fianna Fáil Party, were so much interested in the provision of pensions for the members of the I.R.A. and in the actual administration of the various Acts.

This Bill is, in my opinion, a reenactment of the 1924 and 1934 Acts. When a fresh application is decided upon and when an applicant is permitted to have his case heard, the provisions of the 1924 and the 1934 Acts, as we understood them, shall apply. I presume that each applicant under the 1934 Act shall have the privilege, when it is decided that his case is one for investigation, of appearing before the Referee and his committee with his witnesses and legal aid, if necessary, to assist him in having his application decided upon.

It is a fact, of course, that for some time prior to the advent to office of this Government the 1934 Act was condemned bell, book and candle by nearly all the Parties which now form the Government and many of their spokesmen declared that if they got the opportunity they would amend that Act and that through their amendment of it applicants would have a better chance of getting a pension. There is no amendment as far as the actual Act itself is concerned. The only amendment that I see here is that an applicant can now make a statement through the Minister to the Referee and that the Referee should consider that statement of alleged facts, together with whatever evidence is already in the possession of the Department of Defence, that is, the original application, all the statements that were submitted by the applicant with his application form and all the evidence the previous Referee and his committee obtained through the verification officers or in any other way regarding the activities of the applicant. All that evidence will now be considered again by the Referee, and, in deciding whether a particular application should be further investigated, he must take all that into consideration, together with the statement of alleged facts which may be submitted to him by the applicant when this Bill becomes law. Therefore, this is a Bill designed to give a limited number of ex-members of the Irish Republican Army a pension. That is no departure, I think, from the method of dealing with the situation used by the previous Government.

On the production of evidence that was not previously available a man had a right to appeal and in my opinion the interpretation of that type of evidence was so wide that almost everybody who wished to appeal had the opportunity granted. Not alone had he an opportunity of appealing once but could on several occasions have appeals heard and decided. I want to know from the Minister if, when a statement of alleged facts is submitted through him to the Referee and the Referee decides that the particular application should not be reinvestigated, the applicant would get a second chance of putting a new statement of alleged facts before the Referee. That is one question that is not too clear to me from reading the Bill but I presume that he will only get one opportunity. There is nothing in this Bill to provide for the extension of the date for new applications. In his introductory remarks he stated that he would provide for that contingency by regulation. In my opinion it would be far better to meet that problem by a section in the Bill. Will the Minister extend the date to a particular date and have that fact published in the public Press and if after that date pressure is brought to bear on him and he extends it further, when will there be a final date on which new applications can be received? I think it would be far better to have the limiting date named in the measure itself and that discretionery power of extending that date should not be left solely to the Minister.

Another point I want to deal with is the operative date in the Bill. Any pension that accrues to an individual under the Bill cannot be paid any earlier than the operative date, and the operative date is the date of the passage into law of this measure. I do not see why a person who served in the I.R.A. and who failed to make the grade and get a pension under the 1934 Act and who now succeeds should be deprived of the benefit of the 1934 Act when it is the 1934 Act that is administered under this Bill. He should not be deprived of whatever moneys would have accrued to him if he had succeeded in the first instance in getting a military service certificate. That discrimination is made between a successful applicant under the 1934 Act whose case was heard before the passage of this Bill into law and the applicant whose case is heard after its passage. If he is entitled to succeed under the 1934 Act I do not see why he should be deprived of his pension from the date laid down in it, because it is under the very same Act that he will get a pension now.

It has been the practice from time to time in the past for certain Deputies to inquire in this House what pension a particular Deputy would have under any of the Acts. As a matter of fact I was questioned myself about it. Certain Deputies in this House feel that A should not be in receipt of a military service pension although he qualified under the Act, and still be a member of the House. One reason why I welcome the introduction of this measure is that it will give Deputies an opportunity of voicing their opinions on that point. It will give them an opportunity of seeing, through the operations of the Bill when it has been successfully brought through this House, pensions provided for other members of the House who may care to apply under its provisions but who did not apply previously, and also for anybody outside the House who applies and happens at some future date to come into this House. It will call their bluff on the type of propaganda they used against people who had the necessary military service to this country to qualify them for a pension.

I want to refer to the statement made last night by another representative from County Meath, Deputy Captain Giles, in relation to the men who remained steadfast and loyal to the oath they gave to the Irish Republican Government while they were members of the Irish Republican Army. I refer to the men who stood steadfast to the Irish Republican movement between 1922 and 1924. I want to disabuse the public mind and the minds of members of this House of any impression that the men who served in that Army during those years paid themselves by any moneys, because the members of that force were unpaid. They gave their time without fee or reward, without food, without housing, without commissariat and without transport and almost without the bare necessities of life in the fight to the finish to defend the position that was created by the people of this country when they set up the Irish Republic. The statement made by Deputy Giles last night should never have been made in the Parliament of this country. Had he looked around him to the benches of the Party that is supporting him here in this House, his statement could be applicable to Deputy Fitzpatrick or any of the other Deputies——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy had better get back to the Bill.

Mr. Hilliard

I do not believe there will be many new applications coming in on account of the 1924 Act. If Deputy Giles had read the 1924 Act, he would find that the qualifying operative clause there was service in the forces of the National Army of 1922 to 1924. Under the 1934 Act, the qualifying service for a pension was service rendered in the I.R.A. during Easter Week, 1916, and/or in the years 1918 to 1922; and a man had to render during that period service to satisfy the Referee and his committee that he was one to whom the Act applied. The minimum that the Referee required of him was active participation in at least one major engagement with the enemy, but he had to have, along with that, sufficient military service to show that he was an active participant in the fight for independence during that period.

When Deputies come to deal with individual cases and put them up here as cases of hardship, they deal with one small item in a man's service. If they looked over the individual case and found that the man had that service and that he had not the continuing military activities that were necessary to make a case, it would be very difficult for the Referee and his committee to give that type of person a pension. When this Bill becomes law and the Minister sets up his new Referee and new committee, and when they go into these cases, their decisions will be, in my opinion, a direct answer to any Deputies or anyone else who considered that the previous administration, through its Referees and its committees, dealt unjustly with any particular applicant.

There are people asking that a definition of active service should be included in these Bills. I thoroughly disagree with such a contention, no matter from what side of the House it comes. It is almost an impossibility for any body of men to define what was active service in the Forces to which these Acts apply. Recently, I heard a fellow-Deputy say that we should get away from this idea of active service and get down to the military value of a man's service in the Irish Republican Army. If the Referee and his committee approach the question in that way and examine cases from that point of view, as to what was the military value of any applicant's work in the Irish Republican Army to this country, they would go nearer to the point of assessing the value in pension rights to that individual. Furthermore, even if you have the best Referee and the best committee it is possible to get, you will still have cases in which it can be said that full justice has not been done.

I wish this measure the best of luck. I hope that when whatever number of cases there are has been dealt with under it, it will be the finale and that no further attempts will be necessary to meet the situation which had to be met as a result of the upset in family life and upset in status, due to the long struggle for independence engaged in by the members of the I.R.A., Cumann na mBan and kindred organisations. The State has done all it can do to meet that bill which naturally remained to be paid, even though the members of the organisation during the time did not expect and did not believe or hope that such would be done. At that time, the members of those organisations were not in a position to realise fully the implications of their work and it was only in after life that they realised the shortcomings they were faced with as a result of the long time they gave in the service of their country. It was only when the hard facts of life forced them into a difficult position that they had to seek from the State monetary aid to assist them for the remainder of their days in the battle of life.

Mr. Brennan

After 25 years of effort on the part of successive Governments, we are here to-day discussing a Bill to meet the claims of the Old I.R.A. by some form of compensation for the services they rendered to the country.

The Minister indicated yesterday that one of the reasons that prompted him to introduce this measure was that individuals and groups of people had approached him from time to time since he became Minister for Defence and pointed out the injustice meted out to certain members of the I.R.A. The reason given by these people for the injustice was that they did not hold the political views that were held by the Government of the day. I am referring now particularly to the 1934 Act. I do not propose to say much about the 1924 Act. I have a fair idea of every individual in the area I represent who secured a pension under the 1924 Act. I have a fair idea of the service rendered. I have a pretty fair idea of every individual in that area who failed to secure a pension under the 1924 Act and I have a fair idea of the service rendered.

I may be wrong but I am under the impression that the Minister said that probably 50 per cent. of the 2,000 who would qualify under this scheme would qualify under the 1924 Act. That can hardly happen. I am judging it by my own experience. Knowing the particular individuals in my own area who succeeded and those who did not succeed, I would be surprised if 50 per cent.——

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

I think the Deputy took me up wrong there. A very, very small percentage would come from the 1924 Act.

Mr. Brennan

Is that what the Minister stated?

Dr. O'Higgins

A tiny percentage.

Mr. Brennan

That is the impression I got. I am sorry. I do not propose to deal with the 1924 Act except to say that there is the possibility, of course, that there will be a certain number of individuals who may make application under the 1924 Act and there will be a certain number of new applications under the 1934 Act. There were persons in this country or in neighbouring countries who were in a position to make applications under the 1924 Act and the 1934 Act and who did not do so. We are not concerned with their reasons for not applying. I am not thinking of those people, but I have in mind members of the Old I.R.A. who are living abroad and I am just wondering how they will get the information which will enable them to make the necessary application within the prescribed period. I would like to know from the Minister what steps he proposes to take to let these people know that there is a possibility of their receiving a pension or medal for the services they have rendered in the Irish Republican Army in the period 1916 onwards. I am not concerned with the people at home. They have already had an opportunity and they can apply under this Bill. I am concerned with those in the United States of America and other parts of the world who have not yet been informed that a Military Service Pension Act was introduced in this country. I have in mind the case of an Old I.R.A. man who had not the necessary qualifications for a service pension but who had the qualifications for a service medal. He was home from the United States about 18 months ago and he was surprised to learn from me that there was such a thing as a service medal. The time for application had expired and we had to wait until the Minister extended it. That person was very pleased that he would eventually receive a service medal, which he could proudly wear at functions in the United States. That man had been 25 or 26 years abroad and knew nothing about that Act until he came home. I would like to know from the Minister what steps he intends taking to give due notice to people in various parts of the world so that they may get what they are legally entitled to get.

As regards the 1934 Act and the administration of that Act as one who played the part of a verifying officer for my brigade, I must admit that in the closing stages, after five, six or seven years' administration of the Act, there was still a certain number of individuals who we and the brigade committee believed were entitled to a pension. We got the opportunity of making a case for a certain number of these people. We carried out the necessary formalities, even to the extent of having affidavits made, and I note from the Minister's statement that, in reference to these appeal cases, out of 1,294 applicants, 654 succeeded. While we still believe—I believe it myself, as does the brigade committee of which I was a member—that there are individuals who did not succeed, even on appeal, in securing a service certificate who should have succeeded, I must admit in fairness to the board that both the brigade committee and the individual himself got every opportunity to make a case. We made the case, even, as I say, to the extent of having affidavits prepared, and a certain number succeeded and a certain number failed.

The point is that those who failed did not, in the opinion of the board, reach that standard in the matter of service which the board set up, I presume, in its early stages, to enable the board to assess whether an individual had the necessary qualifying service. We cannot get away from the fact that we were unable to satisfy the board, and if the Minister or the Referee under this Bill is enabled to open the door a little wider, to tone down, if you like, the standard set by a former board, it will be all to the good. It will probably bring in some of those who, we felt, and who I still feel, were just as entitled to a pension as I was. If this Bill enables that situation to come about, it is all to the good, and I welcome it. I hope it will go a long way towards meeting the cases of those who claim that an injustice was done and of those who claim that a mistake was made, and thereby satisfy, to a certain extent, a number of the Old I.R.A. and kindred organisations.

Statements have been made with regard to the 1934 Act, both inside and outside this House, and Deputy Travnor yesterday quoted the Minister for External Affairs as making a statement with regard to the assessment of pensions under that Act, that pensions were given to individuals who were not entitled to them. As Deputy Traynor put it, while it might have been the objective of that Minister to make propaganda against Fianna Fáil or against Deputy Traynor, as the then Minister for Defence, it was really an attack on the Referee and on the board, and while I differed from the board very often in the course of my association with it, I should like to say, as I have said here before, that the board carried out its obligations in the light of the standard of service which case of every application.

In this connection, I should like to take this opportunity to cite a particular case in which Deputy Allen, my colleague, and myself were interested. We were discussing a particular case. They were two individuals, A and B. A had qualified three or three and a half years previously and on this day B's application was being discussed. After the civil war, B had emigrated to America. We were aware of the assessment given to A and we knew what his pension was. He had been receiving it for three or three and a half years. The board informed us that B was receiving a certain assessment, which, in our opinion and particularly in my opinion, was not correct, in view of A's assessment. I raised the point with the board and asked one of the members if he would procure A's file which should show an exact replica of the service rendered by B because the two were more or less twins—what one was in, the other was in. They got A's file and we found that the little difference in the assessment was due to the fact that B, in making his claim, had not claimed service in respect of police work during the Truce period. Presumably, the reason he did not so claim was the fact that he was in the United States and was not properly coached in regard to filling up his form.

I cite that case to show that so far as I am concerned—and I think that quite a number of other verifying officers will agree—the board were very consistent in the manner in which they made their assessments. I suggest that, in these circumstances, charges should not be made by any Deputy and particularly charges which cannot be backed up by facts should not be made in public outside. I maintain that it is the duty of the Minister for External Affairs if he believes that men had received pensions under the 1934 Act who were not entitled to them, to have an inquiry made. Deputy Traynor yesterday challenged the Minister to take such action or to withdraw his remarks. Let us hope that he will do one or the other.

In regard to the administration of the 1934 Act, we had Deputy O'Leary— and I am glad that he is present in the House at the moment—making the charge that men were refused pensions because they were members of the Labour Party or members of Fine Gael. I say that that is untrue. Deputy O'Leary is from the particular brigade area which I had the honour to represent as verifying officer. I say—perhaps it is new to Deputy O'Leary, although he should know it—that I have in mind one individual, a Labour leader, a representative of Labour on the Enniscorthy Urban Council at one period, who did not get a pension under the 1924 Act.

Do not talk, you. You should be wrapped up in the Red, White and Blue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Brennan will find himself in serious trouble if he does not observe the rules of order.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not propose to detain the House at any length on this measure, but there are a few points in regard to which I should like to add my voice to the views already expressed from all sides of the House. First and foremost, I feel that those who qualify under this Bill should, in all justice, have their pensions paid as from the date of the coming into force of the 1934 Act. I do not think the Minister need have any fears that, either in this House or in the country, there will be any great agitation against a generous definition under that heading. If a man qualifies to-day who, for some reason or other failed to qualify in the past, he should at least be brought into line with those of his comrades who were fortunate enough to qualify under previous Acts. If, as has been stated the number of applications turned down under the two previous Acts amounted to something in the region of 65,000 or 66,000 and if the Minister is correct in his forecast that those who qualify under this Bill will number something in the neighbourhood of 2,000 to 3,000, that will leave upwards of 60,000 persons who might have their hopes raised by the introduction of this measure and who will ultimately be disappointed, if the Minister's contention is correct that only 2,000 to 3,000 will be likely to qualify.

For that reason I think that, in the interest of his Department, it would be well for the Minister or the Referee to define, if at all possible, what exactly will be regarded as military service, and to say what will be the standard under this Bill which will enable an applicant to qualify. That should be broadcast so that every person who might be thinking of making an application under the Bill when it becomes an Act will know exactly where he stands. That will prevent a number of those people from making application who might otherwise do so. It will save a considerable amount of administrative work on the part of the Minister's Department and also prevent the raising of false hopes in a very large number of persons who, if the Minister is correct in his statement, will fail to qualify even under this measure.

The Minister need have no doubts that he will be regarded as overgenerous in whatever steps he may take to see that justice is done in those cases which may be regarded as borderline cases. After all, these people belong to an organisation which, for the first time in 750 years, brought about a successful revolution. There is a debt of gratitude due to those people on the part of the people of this country and of those who sit in this House to see that justice is done to them. I should like also to have an assurance from the Minister that the very small number of persons, who, for one reason or another, failed to apply under previous Acts will now be given an opportunity, if they wish to do so, to make application to come under the benefits of this measure.

In conclusion, I should like to make an appeal to those who have been in the habit of making statements, which they knew very well to be unfounded, to the effect that people were denied pensions because they did not belong to a certain political organisation. I think that is generally known to be untrue. If proof of that were necessary, I can say from knowledge of my own constituency that 90 per cent. of those who failed to qualify under previous Acts were supporters of the Fianna Fáil Administration. I think that should be a sufficient answer to the many wild and false statements made in connection with this matter.

I do hope that in the case of all those who have genuine cases and genuine claims, whether they are persons who failed under the previous Act or persons who for certain reasons, did not apply up to now, that the Act will be given as wide an interpretation as possible, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister is so insistent that they will only be paid pensions from the operative date. That is why, I think it is well that it should go from this House that it is the wish of the House that the Referee and the board dealing with these cases would be quite generous, and that they would bring as many as possible within the net. Let us hope, as a colleague has said, that this will be the final Bill dealing with a matter of this kind. I hope this is not going to go on for the next 100 years. At the same time, judging by the way people were misled, and the small number that are likely to qualify, to my mind, at any rate, we have not heard the last of the dissatisfaction of I.R.A. applicants as a result of this measure.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I would like the Minister, when replying, to tell us as clearly as possible what definition as regards qualification is going to appear in this measure. According to the statements made, there have been some 66,000 individuals turned down. The Minister expects that he will be able to qualify, roughly, 6,000, as the administration of this Bill proceeds. I am afraid that if we are to have the same qualification clause in this measure as that which appears in the previous one, it will cause, as Deputy Beegan has said, a good deal of discontent, and there will be no more of these measures introduced. I know that there would be a certain amount of difficulty, financially, in changing the present qualification. I take it that, if "national service" was introduced as a qualification, it might have the effect of increasing the liability on the State to a very large extent. At the same time, I have some knowledge of what took place. I know that many men were refused pensions who gave extremely useful national service. There were, for example, men posted at crossroads leading to ambushes. In view of the fact that the enemy decided not to come that way, these men were debarred from getting a pension. Other men gave service in the making of ammunition. Some men gave service in the way of getting information. I am afraid that many of those men will hardly qualify for a pension if the old qualification is retained in this measure.

The present Minister has now a great opportunity because, according to the figures given, 66,000 individuals have been turned down. Therefore, there must have been a complete examination in these cases, and so he is not in the same position as previous Ministers were when introducing a measure of this kind. They had no data or definite information to go on. The present Minister has complete data and complete information. He knows exactly what the liability on the Government is going to be. I take it that he should be a bit more courageous and should try and settle this question for all time.

There is another point I would like to put to the Minister. Why should it be impossible—I take it that the consideration here is a financial one, too — to make these pensions retrospective, since that principle operates in the case of most pension schemes? It is almost certain that every one of those men and women, too, who applied for a pension under the previous Acts and got turned down, will apply now. To my mind this Bill provides a right of appeal for them. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that the right to be able to put in an application under this measure will be looked upon in the way of an appeal. Therefore, if they succeed in their appeal they should be entitled to their pension from the first day they made their application. I would like the Minister to tell us his views on that point.

In my opinion, Section 3 should be a bit more generous than it is or else remove it altogether. It represents the same cramped system that we find in previous Acts. It only gives recognition. It does not give any great reward. We are just only giving recognition. If we do that, then we should do it generously or remove Section 3. It looks a bit distasteful as it is. In fact, it is nearly as bad as some of the unfortunate statements that have been made in the course of the debate on this measure, statements which are now going to the printer. There were statements made here last night, and I think that if we had the means of doing it they should be removed from the records of the Dáil. This is an historic measure that we are going through with, and we are all going to be judged later on by those who will read these records and perhaps write the history of those times. I think it is a pity that such statements should have been made, statements about bank robberies, political discrimination and other uncalled-for statements. I say that because I believe such statements are going to reflect on every single one of us. I hope that, as this debate goes on, these statements will cease, and that people will show a sense of responsibility. I am not thinking so much of ourselves as of future generations. I am glad that this measure was introduced. I hope that it will be successful and I sincerely trust that it will end this question, though on that point I have very considerable doubts.

Mr. Sheehan

I have listened very carefully to this debate since it started yesterday and it is really amazing, after 25 years of native Government, that some of the soldiers of the I.R.A. who fought for the freedom of this country are still without pensions. The former Minister for Defence said yesterday that he was satisfied that at least a few thousand of these men were border-line cases and that he thought some of them were entitled to a pension. I am sure he was quite sincere when he said that. I am sure, also, if it was in his power when he was a Minister he would have seen that these men would have got pensions. It is up to the present Minister to right this wrong. Some of the I.R.A. men have passed away since the fighting days and may be the number now deserving pensions is very small. It is only proper we should make up our minds to right the wrong.

I was also interested to hear Deputy Moylan, former Minister for Lands, saying that the average pension was something in the nature of £25 a year. How you can call that a pension, I do not know. I think all sides of the House are convinced that these cases should be thoroughly investigated and cleared up once and for all. I also think that if the Minister feels that these men are entitled to pensions under the 1924 and 1934 Acts, he should make these pensions retrospective.

We were all delighted when the Irish Republican Army were engaged in the fight for Irish freedom and I do not think they should be forgotten now. I hope the Minister will investigate all these cases and finish them once and for all.

Mr. McGrath

I agree with other speakers that it is regrettable that Bills concerning pensions for Old I.R.A. men should come before the House so often. I, for one, would like to see this thing finished, if that is at all possible. I am afraid, although the Minister's intention may be to remedy any injustices that were done under previous Acts, that he has killed it at the very outset by his statement yesterday evening, when he said that he expected 17,000 applicants, that 2,000 would qualify and that he was limited to a sum of £50,000.

Dr. O'Higgins

I did not say that, Deputy. I said that my estimate of the expenditure would be £50,000. I did not say that I was limited to that.

Mr. McGrath

I accept that—your estimated expenditure would be £50,000. But, I think the Minister did not estimate that without having some tip-off, some information from another Department, as to what would be allowed if this Bill went through. Everybody knows that there were people left out under previous Acts, people who had cases which merited a pension. We had injustices under both Acts. We had the 1924 Act, under which no man could apply unless he had service in the National Army. That was certainly an injustice to people who fought for the freedom of this country before the Truce — that they should be debarred unless they took up a certain side in the civil war. Even if they were neutral they were debarred unless they had been members of the National Army. That was a great injustice which nobody seems to have mentioned here.

I know of cases under the 1934 Act, men who lost the best years of their lives in their activities with the I.R.A., and they were turned down for pensions. I know of a man in Cork who was caught with a gun. He was told when he was in the centre of the city that there was going to be a round-up and he was advised to get outside to the bridges. He was arrested in the MacCurtain Sinn Féin Hall in Cork and he had a gun. That man, during the two struggles, spent four Christmases in jail. He did not get a pension. I think that was very unjust. The principal reason for that was that he was not able to satisfy the civil servants who were there that he had continuous active service. Continuous active service was a very hard thing to prove, service day after day and night after night.

Any amount of people during the fighting tried in some way or other to carry on their usual occupations, but whether they were carrying them on or not they were ready and at hand to carry out any order that they got. From what I know of the City of Cork, the grievance of most volunteers was that they were not selected to go on jobs. That was the spirit there at that time and it would be well if the present generation would remember that these men were not paid but actually had to subscribe week after week and go around collecting funds for arms. That was the type of payment they got.

A lot of people sneer at the idea of pensions. Perhaps the country would have been better off and there might not have been such disunity if we never had pensions. As regards those who received pensions and those who did not get them, if their losses were to be calculated during the years they were out fighting for the freedom of the country they could never be repaid. It would be well if some people remembered that, and then they might not refer to those men as bank robbers and looters. It might be as well to put that side of the question before the public and have it on record, in contrast with what was mentioned here last night.

It is to be hoped that this Bill will remedy the injustices that have taken place under previous Acts. As Deputy O'Reilly said, you could term these outstanding cases as cases of appeal, which they really are. If a man is now entitled to a pension, a man who previously made a claim and was turned down, surely there can be no justification for not making that pension retrospective. Surely there can be no justification for not making the payment retrospective.

This Bill is introduced to remedy an injustice; yet, apparently, it will deprive the applicants of what, according to the new board, they should have got when their claims were first investigated. If the Minister's estimate that 15,000 people will be turned down is correct, I am afraid we are only giving cause for the continuation of the present dissatisfaction which exists in the ranks of the Old I.R.A. men.

Something must be done to clarify the position as regards the interpretation of the term "active service". I know men who were working in the I.R.A. every night of the week. They had no time for any amusements. We should treat them more generously. Some direction should be given to those interpreting this Act as to the interpretation to be given to the term "active service".

There is another matter raised by Deputy Keane last night to which I would like to refer. He raised this question of the abatement of pensions. I know cases in Cork where labourers, tradesmen, postmen and others working for local authorities have had their pensions reduced where they were earning £5 per week. I think that is quite wrong. The comment has been made: "Some of those fellows got their jobs because they were in the movement and they were given them as a reward." I think that is a very wrong viewpoint; just because a man gets a job he should not be mulcted to the extent of a couple of pounds per month in his pension.

Employees of local authorities, from dispensary doctors right down, have their pensions reduced or stopped altogether while they are in receipt of salary or wages. We have had plenty of cases in Cork where men working for local authorities did not apply for pensions. I know of one particular case where one of these men afterwards got a position with a semi-public body, where he was not paid out of public funds, applied for a pension and received the full amount. I think it is unjust that an ordinary builder's labourer or a postman, or anybody like that, should be turned down or have their pension reduced, simply because they have these jobs. Irrespective of whether they got their jobs by competitive examination, or by any other means, they got them because they were best fitted for them. Possibly they may have got some slight preference because of their having been in the Movement. I appeal to the Minister to do anything he can to rectify the present position.

I am glad to see that there is a section in this Bill to restore pensions to those who were deprived of them. That deprivation has inflicted a great hardship on some of these men. I appeal to the Minister to do all he can to solve this problem once and for all. He did make a statement at the opening which showed he was not attempting to put an end to all the dissatisfaction. He stated clearly that he expects 2,000 of the 17,000 applicants to qualify. That means that the grievances and the dissatisfaction will remain with us.

Mr. Allen

The introduction of this Bill marks the third effort in 25 years to give some measure of justice to those who were responsible for the birth of this State. That is agreed on both sides of the House. I welcome this Bill as far as it goes. I am very much afraid that when it becomes law and operates to its fullest extent as great a measure of dissatisfaction will exist amongst the Old I.R.A. as exists at the present time. The 1924 Act was introduced and under it a man was required to have certain well-defined service in order to qualify. I know men who were out in 1916, who served in the Old I.R.A. and in the National Army in 1922-23 and they failed to qualify under that Act. They have been dissatisfied ever since. They did not come under the 1934 Act because it did not apply to them. There were numbers of men who failed to qualify under the 1924 Act because they were border-line cases. That created a certain amount of dissatisfaction too. We have been told by the Minister that roughly 2,000 will qualify under this Act. If that is so, then the Minister must know that this will give the smallest measure of satisfaction of any measure up to this.

As a result of the passage of time a certain goodwill has grown up in all sections of the community towards the Old I.R.A. I suggest the Government should take its courage in its hand to bring this matter to an end and to give satisfaction to all who served in the I.R.A. It may take as long as eight years to give the 2,000 pensions that will be provided under this Act. The Minister knows the procedure laid down. One individual will be required to examine 15,000 to 20,000 cases before any award can be made. That will take a considerable length of time. It could be anything up to ten years, even, before those 2,000 would qualify under this Bill when it becomes an Act. The Minister should, during the Committee Stage, provide such shorter type of procedure to enable them — even the 2,000 that may qualify under this Act, or a greater number, possibly — to get through. I am afraid, like other Deputies, that the Minister in mentioning the number of 2,000 and the sum of £50,000 did an absolute injustice to the future of this Bill. I am sure the Minister and the Government, if 5,000 or 10,000 will qualify, will provide the money. I have not a doubt about that. However, the Referee or the military board which will be set up under this Bill when it becomes an Act will have in mind what the Government's policy is, namely, to choose from amongst the applicants—whether they be 15,000, 20,000, 25,000 or even 50,000 — as near as possible to 2,000 people. I would ask the Minister, in his concluding speech, to qualify and amend that. Otherwise damage may be done.

This Bill provides that the operative date shall be the date of the passing of the Act. I add my voice to the appeals which were made to the Minister by Deputies on all sides of the House to reconsider that point. Those men have already applied under the 1934 and the 1924 Acts. If they are going to qualify through the same procedure as was adopted in the 1924 and the 1934 Acts, I suggest they are entitled to have their pensions dated back to the dates that were given in both those Acts. The number of men who served in the Volunteers and in the Old I.R.A. is getting smaller year by year. They are a fast-wasting liability to this State. Perhaps in another 20 or, at the most, 25 years there will be an infinitesimal number of Old I.R.A. men alive in this country. That point must be kept in mind by any Government here. These men are a fast-wasting liability to the State. Year by year their numbers are being depleted. They are called beyond this world. As the years go on the mortality rate will be much higher and the liability to the State will, accordingly, be much less. Therefore, the applications of all the men who can prove that they have given service and were members of the Old I.R.A. should be seriously considered and dealt with—and the liability to the State will not be found to be very great.

The Minister, in his opening statement, said that he was not making any provision in this Bill in regard to new applicants but that new applicants could be dealt with by way of regulation. I wonder if the Minister knows anything about it at all. I suppose, under the 1934 Act, he can extend the date for new applicants.

The Minister mentioned the particular individual who did not apply under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act. If he satisfies somebody, either the Minister or the Referee, that he had a good reason for not applying then, he will be allowed to apply under this Act. I think that that is a most degrading thing and I ask the Minister to bring in an amendment on the Committee Stage to obviate the necessity for that procedure. We know that there are individuals up and down the country who did not apply under either Act for some reason best known to themselves and understood, to a certain extent, by many of us. I think that that procedure would be unfair at this stage to these men. They should not have to apply to the Minister for leave to apply for a pension and to have to give personal and private reasons why they did not apply before. That is degrading and unfair to new applicants. The number is not large — a few hundred in all—who may apply when this Bill becomes an Act. I do not see why they should have to give an explanation to anyone as to why they did not apply in the past. That is solely their concern. If the Minister has the power of extending the date for new applicants who did not apply before, I suggest he should extend it to a period of 18 months from the date of the passing of the Act. That would not be doing much damage to the financial structure of this State.

Some Deputies were of opinion, and I do not blame them for being of that opinion, that if "military service" were defined in this Bill it would be to the advantage of the Old I.R.A. There was a campaign carried on in this country to the effect that the 1934 Act was a useless Act unless "military service" was defined in it. I am glad, in the interests of new applicants and of those who did not get pensions, that the Minister has not set out the definition of "military service" in this Bill. I consider that by doing so he would damage the interests of those who could show genuine claims. The basis of "military service" was taken by the Referee in the past to be the value of the military service given. There was a yardstick for measurement. It was accurate. It was consistent right through the whole time. It was found, in operation, to be a sound basis for defining "active service". If the same principle is applied under this Bill when it becomes an Act I think it will give more satisfaction than to have written in any law, in any Bill, what constituted "active service" during the period 1916-21.

The Minister told us in his statement that the deputation from the Old I.R.A. agreed with him that the operative date must be the date of the passing of this Act. I think he also said that he put it up to them that if they did not accept that date they would have no Bill. I cannot see what option they had — to put the pistol to their heads and to say: "This Bill or no Bill."

Dr. O'Higgins

It is a pistol we should all like to have at our heads — with £50,000 in it.

Mr. Allen

It was an unfair way to put it.

Dr. O'Higgins

You can start shooting me any day with that kind of a pistol.

Mr. Allen

It is a partial measure of justice and it was unfair to have it put to them in that way. The operative date, as far as they are concerned, should be the operative date in the case of the 1924 and 1934 applications.

Mention was made, during the course of the debate, of political discrimination. I am sorry that subject was mentioned. Very few members of this House would mention it. Every person who knows anything about the Old I.R.A. knows about the administration of the 1924 Act and, even under the 1934 Act, knows quite well that there was no political discrimination whatsoever, good or bad. I characterise it as an absolute untruth to say there was. Irrespective of what a man's views were at that time, during the time the 1934 Act was administered, or what side he took or what views he had on particular Party matters, he was helped.

I never heard in the County Wexford or in the town of Enniscorthy, which I am in many days in the week, of any man who was refused a pension because of his political views. It was not true. Every individual who measured up to the yardstick set by the Referees got a pension. There were many good men who, the brigade committees believed, should have got a pension but who did not qualify by the measurement the Referee set. I hope that they will measure up under this Bill. I am not afraid that there will be any political discrimination under this Bill, good, bad or indifferent. I am not concerned about that at all. I know that all Old I.R.A. men, irrespective of their views on politics at the moment, will get together and get the best they can out of the Bill, but it is not one that will give satisfaction. It is one that will give more disappointment, I am sorry to say, than any previous Act. If it is going to be limited to the couple of thousand men who can qualify under it, it will give dissatisfaction and I would appeal to the Minister not to limit the machinery that may be set up under this Bill to a limited number of men. I am sorry that the Minister made such a statement as he made in his opening remarks on this Bill and I have no doubt that he will qualify it. I hope that the men who were recommended by the Referee under the 1934 Act or the Board of Assessors under the 1924 Act will be accepted by this Government and this Minister.

Micheál Ó Cinnéide

Tá beag nach gach rud ráite, a bhí ar intinn agum a rá. Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo, ach sé mo thuairim nach é seo an Bille deireannach dá shórt a bheas ós comhair an Tí seo. I do not subscribe to the view that this Bill brings finality to the question of pensions for the Old I.R.A. Deputy Allen mentioned that there were two Acts, the 1924 and the 1934 Act, but as far as I know, subject to correction, there were seven, and while any of us are still alive we will probably have seven more. Anyway, this is a step in advance and being such I welcome it. I want to subscribe to what Deputy Moylan said last night and, with your permission, Sir, I will repeat it:—

"An attack was made here on the brigade committees that were formed to try to help with the administration of the 1934 Act. That Act could not be administered if those brigade committees were not set up. The men of those committees collated records, collected evidence and gave evidence before the board without prejudice against those who were their friends or those who were their enemies."

If the Minister is to get the maximum justice out of this Bill he will stick strictly to the deposited brigade records. It was understood a short time ago that there were certain brigades which had not up to a particular time deposited their records but I think that 90 per cent. of the brigades had done so. If the Minister carries on with these brigade committees he will get the best results out of this Bill. Statements have been made already that people got military service medals under the 1946 Act who were not entitled to them. I do not know whether that is right or wrong. I do not know whether their applications were submitted to the verifying officers of the brigades but if there has been a departure from that procedure it is very wrong.

I want to take Deputy Captain Giles to task for his remarks last night. Deputy Hilliard has dealt with him already. I want to say to him that he was a fellow-guest with me at one time of His Majesty when he ruled this country, and a number of honourable men, men as honourable as he was, who were prisoners along with him took different sides in the civil war. He is old enough and long enough in this House to put a curb on his tongue. He is as desirous as we are to take the Six Counties and to stretch out the hand of friendship to the Orangemen in the North. That object is not going to be easy, but mudslinging here about a thing that should be forgotten in the past will not help. Let us not refer to it at all, but let us go ahead to do our best for those who are left who were with me in my small way and with him in his big endeavour to advance the interests of the country.

I do not agree with the idea of having a public trial of everyone who applies for a pension. I do not know of any country where such a thing is carried out. I think that the procedure that has been adopted and which is to be continued in this Bill is the best procedure to do justice to the applicant. I welcome this measure and repeat that it will not be the last.

Mr. R. Walsh

I can assure the Minister that I am not going to keep him very long. All I have to say can be summed up in a few words. After a long time and after very large expectation throughout the country as to what this Bill was going to do the mountain has brought forth a mouse. I could not see from the beginning how the mountain could do anything else. The principle of giving pensions is either right or wrong. There was in the past undoubtedly a tradition in this country that many men who served the country in all the national movements for well over 100 years died in the workhouse, men who gave their services in the land war and other movements. One good thing about giving military service pensions was that it broke that evil tradition. We have established that men who served are entitled to a reward if the nation is empowered to give it.

I would suggest to the Minister that in the case of any pension below £25, if the person in receipt of such a pension wanted, it could be given as a bulk sum instead of £20 or £15 a year. There are some pensions, I believe, as low as £5, or even less. A man should be entitled to apply for a bulk sum instead of a miserable pension. A £100 to a small farmer may be of some value, but £5 is of no value.

I cannot see how you can define service. Those of us who had any experience of the struggle as it went on have incidents before our minds in which men who, it can be said, never fired a shot or never carried a firearm, gave more valuable service and service at greater risk to their own lives than people who did carry arms. How you are going to draw a line of demarcation I do not know, and I do not see how it can be attempted. I would say to the Minister that the old system, as Deputy Kennedy has just said, of investigating the applications for pensions worked out on the whole fairly well and I do not think that any interference with it now will improve matters. It would create the impression throughout the country that the giving of pensions is going to be used for political purposes and that, to say the least of it, would not be desirable — that each Party as it came into power would have its own Pensions Bill. Therefore, I think we would serve the country well by preserving the investigation board such as exists at present. I would certainly appeal to the Minister to put into this Bill even additional facilities to the applicant, if they can be devised, so that he could have the right of appeal, after hearing the decision given against him, even if it were necessary to go into the whole investigation of his case again. I would rather have anything than see what exists in the country at the present time — men whom we know, and known to people like myself who were in a position to know, who did the things that we knew other men were drawing pensions for, who did not do nearly as much or run half the risk.

Certainly, anything that would avoid that would have my support. The chief harm has been done by the public speakers going throughout the country — I do not want to turn this into a discussion of Party politics — who were raising hopes that, in their own hearts and minds, many of them knew very well, and must have known, could not be fulfilled. They were creating ideas in some men's minds that if they stood in the street and formed fours for about 15 minutes, even though they were turned down by the board after a close investigation, they still in some way could wriggle through and get a pension. That is what has done the harm and created the trouble throughout the country.

As I said at the beginning, the question of the system of giving pensions for national service is either right or it is wrong. I think it is right. Every country in the world has done it and I do not see why we are not entitled to do it. The origin of the pensions can be briefly stated to be this, as far as we are concerned. Any man, previous to the Truce, who was engaged in the movement certainly did not expect a pension — it was the last thing in his mind—and for years after that the same feeling prevailed; but a situation arose—and I put it bluntly—out of what is known as the "Mutiny" here and the then Government, to ease the situation, started giving pensions. I do not for a moment want to imply that the men who got the pensions under the 1924 Act were not entitled to them. I knew of none of them who got a pension at that time who was not entitled to it. But that created the fashion, the next Government followed up and now it is being followed up again.

People ask why service is not defined, but I do not see how it could be defined. It is something you cannot define in a struggle like ours. We were not fighting as a regular army, we had not a regular military organisation in the sense where every man's name was listed, where he was attached to a definite unit and got a regular sum each week and all the system of a regular army was carried out. It is easy to deal with a situation like that, but where no records and no register were kept I do not see how you could define it. Therefore, I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to consider what I have said about the question of the small pensions, that on request, if the man desires it so, he would get instead a bulk sum of at least ten years' purchase.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I have been looking over the debate on the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1945, and in the light of the Bill we have before us now it is a most interesting debate, particularly the speech that was delivered on that occasion by the man who is now Minister for Defence sitting opposite, in connection with the Bill that was then introduced by Deputy Traynor who was Minister for Defence at that time. In view of the speech delivered by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, as he then was, in connection with that Bill, why is not that 1945 Act being repealed now? I agree with my colleague, Deputy Dick Walsh, in regard to this whole Bill that it is like the mountain in labour producing a mouse—and a very small mouse at that.

I think the whole Bill is a fraud on the people whom it is suggested it is going to serve. The Minister told us when he was introducing it that he expects it will take in 2,000 further applicants for military service pensions. I tell the Minister that as soon as that 2,000, or perhaps more or perhaps less than 2,000, are dealt with, he will have 2,000 or 3,000 more border-line cases. There will be no finality about it and there will be another mess to clear up, for some other Minister for Defence, after this Minister has finished creating this mess that will result from this Bill that we are discussing now.

I can speak with some little authority regarding the operation of the Military Service (Pensions) Act of 1934, because since 1935 I was secretary of a brigade committee that had to do a good deal of work in connection with the applicants for pensions from the brigade in question and had to supply a large amount of data and information to the Referee and advisory committee in regard to the activities of that brigade. My experience with regard to the operations of the various Referees and the advisory committee and the administration of the 1934 Act, as far as we knew and could see it, was fair and above board, just and efficient. Anyone who made any kind of reasonable case at all for a pension got it. That was the experience I had. There were certain cases that I know of, where I regret to say neither I, as secretary of the brigade committee, nor the members of the brigade committee or verifying officers, were able to do anything about—cases where the applicants themselves ruined any chance they had by the type of evidence they gave when first called up to give evidence before the Referee. They did not make their own cases and when they were not able to make their own cases no one else could make them for them. These are the cases that need to be dealt with, and I do not know whether they can be dealt with under this Bill now.

There was a provision under the 1934 Act for appeals and for the reopening of cases. You were entitled to submit additional evidence not previously available. In the discussion here, the Minister told us that there were 1,294 appeals from the board to the Referee and of those 1,294, 654 qualified as a result of the re-hearing or re-investigation. That is further proof that there was fair play and that reasonable care was taken by the Referee and the advisory committee with regard to all the cases that came up before him. There were 60,000 applicants under the 1934 Act and roughly about 12,000 of these applicants qualified for military service pensions under that Act. The figure given by Deputy Traynor when he was introducing the 1945 Bill was 11,577. After that there were other appeals up to the 31st December, 1946. What I object to most strenuously in this Bill is the operative date. Under the 1934 Act anyone who applied for a pension in 1934, 1937, 1940, no matter what date, if he qualified, was paid that pension from the 1st April, 1934. This is an amendment of the 1934 Act but, as I read it, it does away altogether with the right to retrospective payment from the 1st April, 1934. If the applicants who will qualify under this Bill were volunteers, as the terms of the 1934 Act prescribe, they are entitled, in justice and fair play, to the same right as is enjoyed by the 12,000 who have already qualified to get their pensions from the 1st April, 1934. They are the same type of people. It is suggested that they have been treated unjustly, discriminated against, or something else like that, because of their political views in some cases. If that is so, if they qualify under this amending Bill, they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by the 12,000 men who qualified up to the time when the operations of the Referee, the advisory committee and all the operations of the 1934 Act were terminated on the 31st December, 1946.

I want to get information with regard to one individual case. It is the case of a 1916 man who failed to apply for military service pension before 31st December, 1946. He applied a month or so afterwards. His application from the United States is filed in the Department of Defence. The application being late, nothing could be done about it. Under this Bill, what will be the position of that man? He is known to several members of this House. He served with them in Dublin in Easter Week. Two of his brothers served also in Easter Week. The man in question emigrated to the United States in 1919. His brothers continued in the fight here until the cease fire order, 1923. Then they had to emigrate to the United States. I know that one of these brothers is in receipt of a military service pension under the 1934 Act. He qualified on the 1st April, 1934. Will this man who failed to apply, who did not understand the position or did not know of the existence of the Act until it was too late, be entitled to apply now under this Bill and will he be paid only from the operative date whereas his brother, who is in receipt of a pension under the 1934 Act, has been paid that pension from the 1st April, 1934? The service in the case of the man I am talking about now is only Easter Week service because, as I have said, he emigrated to the United States in 1919 but, if he is entitled to apply, he should qualify automatically for pension. There would be no question about it, no doubt whatever.

There are men living who served with him and there are records available in the Dublin Brigade to show that he will automatically qualify. Will he be entitled to receive that pension only from the operative date as laid down in this amending Bill? That would be a shame and a disgrace. He should be entitled to the same right as is enjoyed by every other Easter Week man who, at any time he applied from the passing of the Act in 1934, up to the 31st December, 1946, got arrears of pension from the 1st April, 1934. The introduction of that clause is an insult to the many genuine Old I.R.A. men who have not succeeded in qualifying. There are not too many of them. It is an insult to the many Old I.R.A. men all over the country who were looking forward to this Bill as a means of helping them to get over the difficulties they had in qualifying for the pension they felt they were entitled to but did not get under the 1934 Act. That situation should be remedied.

I want to protest also against the suggestion that has been made that there was discrimination against applicants because of their political associations and affiliations. That was hinted at in a speech delivered some time ago by the Minister for Education in Ennis, County Clare. Of all the men in this country, the Minister for Education should be the last to talk about discrimination against Old I.R.A. men because there are thousands of those Old I.R.A. men who came out of jail in 1924, after the cease fire order, who are seattered all over the face of the earth because of the man who talks about discrimination against men because of their political affiliations. There was no such thing under that Act. I can speak as secretary of a brigade committee. Most of the men who comprised that brigade committee were of the same type of political affiliations because all that brigade committee of which I was secretary went against the Treaty in 1921 but they helped every type of applicant and worked hard, effectively and efficiently for every type of applicant, no matter what his political affiliations were, to try to get the pension for him.

There is a brotherhood amongst all these Old I.R.A. men that transcends all these differences and they help one another. I have seen proof of it. It is a scandal and shame for anyone in this country to suggest that the 1934 Act was used to discriminate against political opponents. It was not. The people who said that—I do not care who they are—are guilty of lying and false slanders. Then there was another suggestion, during the election campaign and before it, that there were people who were in receipt of pensions who did not qualify. That suggestion was made by the Minister for External Affairs.

I agree with those of my colleagues who referred to the matter when they said that the Minister was foolish, was very unwise, to lay down any limit, because it is quite possible that that limit will be accepted by the people responsible for the administration of the Act as the limit to which they can go. I think that question about the number of cases that can be dealt with should be reconsidered by the Minister and he should not be so definite, because, as I understand the framework of the Act, the number of cases to be covered will be a matter for the Referee, and for the Referee alone, and not for the Minister or the Department. The Minister was not at all wise in setting any limit to the activities of the Referee in this matter.

I have not got much hope that this Bill will be a solution of the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the 1934 Act, but, at the same time, I hope it will succeed in bringing us to the end of the road, so far as that very difficult and controversial subject is concerned and that it will do something to meet the genuine grievances which exist in a comparatively small number of cases. I think my colleagues would agree that the number of genuine deserving cases which exist all over the country is comparatively small.

Furthermore, with regard to the question of disability, it seems to me that, where the disability is the loss of a leg, it is quite obvious that there is a bigger disability in the case of a man who has been an agricultural labourer than in the case of a man who has been a clerk. Still the disability is the same for both. That position is not quite as it ought to be.

I do not agree with many of the statements I have heard about this Bill. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Bill that entitles a new applicant, that is, a person who has not already applied, to apply, so we are therefore concerned only with the number of people who applied under the 1924 and the 1934 Acts. I think the Minister said that the combined numbers were somewhere in the region of 80,000. According to the Bill, the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant an applicant a service certificate, that is, an applicant who had been refused under either of the Acts.

There is a clear statement in the Bill that the word "evidence" includes any information obtained as the result of inquiries made by the Referee or on his behalf or furnished by any person. That is a complete departure, in my opinion, from the previous Acts. This question of whether there is a prima faciecase to justify the Referee in re-investigating it, of course will be largely governed by the source from which the Referee does get his evidence. If he confines himself to the information supplied by the brigade committees or the Old I.R.A. men in the area, it seems to me that his decision in 99 per cent. of the cases will have to be the same as it was in the administration of the previous Acts. If, of course, there is to be a new definition of “active service”—and that is not referred to here—then the Referee would have a discretion on that score, but, as I say, he does not require that to make out a prima facie case in respect of any one of the applicants who have been turned down, if he goes for his evidence to sources which will give favourable evidence. He is entitled, as I have said, under subsection (4) of Section 11 to do that.

Again, with regard to the question whether this Bill will be retrospective in its effect or not, I had to give to the Dáil the considerations which had to be taken into account, the financial involvement, and, as far as I could, the lump sum that would be necessary in order to make these pensions retrospective either to 1934 or to an earlier date. If I had not given some indication as to the financial magnitude of such retrospective legislation, then I would be asking Deputies to take a decision, either to support or to oppose this Bill, in blinkers, without having the full information that they are properly entitled to get from the Minister. Yet with regard to that, I was told by one Deputy that there again I was guilty of unfairness in so far as I was trying to stampede Deputies into acquiescing in the proposals by waving in front of them the magnitude of the sum involved. Every Deputy has a responsibility, not only to the people who served this country but to the taxpayers who have got to meet the bill for any demands made.

There was a certain suggestion running through some of the speeches, perhaps unintentionally, and in the interests of the good name of this country, and of successive Governments with regard to the manner in which they looked after the soldiers of the past, I think it would be a mistake if it went out, or was read into any speech made in Dáil Éireann, that this comparatively new and young State of ours had, through its legislation, shown a lack of generosity towards the people who brought the State into being. I am saying this, not on behalf of any one Government, but on behalf of three successive Governments, each one of them in their time measuring the limited public purse and, within the limits of that public purse, trying to do the greatest degree of justice to those old-timers. Starting with the 1924 Act, you come on to the various Acts dealing with wounds and disabilities; then you come on to the 1934 Act, then on to the issue of medals and the special allowance for holders of the medals in the event of bad health or destitution. Altogether, between those various Acts passed from time to time, according as the public purse was able to stand the strain, in a little country the size of ours we are issuing the best part of £750,000 a year to one class or another of these old-timers. I think that for the good name of the country and the Deputies who have made up successive Dála, it is reasonable to call attention to and to publicise the fact that there has never been on the part of any Government in this country a lack of generosity in their approach to those whom we can now call old-timers.

Going back to the other Bills, probably none of them reflected in full what the Minister in charge or the Government beside him or the Party behind him would have liked to do. Every one of these was limited by the capacity of the public purse to bear the added strain. No one of these Bills represented the full measure of the desire of the Government of the time to help the people it was designed to assist and the process of assistance, of a little more help, a little more aid, a little further extension of previous legislation was a step-to-step process, a year-to-year process. Here in this particular Bill the proposal is to go another step forward. It may be a small step in the opinion of some; it may be a fairly substantial step in the opinion of others; but at least it is a step further along that particular road and it will add a considerable number of thousands of pounds per annum to the bill already there.

I myself and the people alongside me have exactly the same feelings of friendship towards and respect for people who played a meritorious and heroic part in the past as any Deputy sitting anywhere around this House, and anyone in my position, if he were merely guided by his heart and left his head behind him, would bring in a far bigger scheme than I am bringing in. But there has to be a process of balancing, a process of spacing. If anybody tries to get to the end of a mile in one step, he will break his neck; a discreet and wise person will take it step by step. There is in this Bill a very considerable and expensive step forward. There are a certain number of people—we will not argue about the number—who, according to Deputies all round this House, have a strong claim, a valid claim and a meritorious claim on whom the door was locked under the Act of 1945. We are at least reopening that door and we are giving to each one of them, back to 1924, if they are disgruntled and feel that, through one kind of error or mistake of their own or somebody else's, they have not got full justice in the past, another opportunity.

Certain Deputies disputed my estimate of the number. They considered that the figure I gave was too low. Perhaps it is; perhaps the number who will benefit will be twice the number that my Department estimated for. The greater the number, the greater the degree of justice and benefit under this Bill. But, even if it were only 100 and not a number of thousands who will benefit, is it not a good day's work to be helping to some extent towards a pension for the rest of their natural lives even 100 old volunteers of the past?

Naturally, there has been a considerable amount of talk and a great number of speeches made with regard to the justice of the claim made and the injustice of not making the pensions retrospective. The way I look at things is that justice, in the legal or material sense, means that persons get their entitlement under the law. If you apply that as a standard, it is a pretty fair standard and definition of justice in the material and legal sense. What are the rights under the law as it exists of these 2,000 or 4,000 men? What are their rights at the present moment under the law as far as pensions are concerned? Their right under the law at the present moment with regard to pensions is nothing per annum; it is justice as the law stands at the moment. I am altering that law and you are altering that law and you are giving the 2,000 or 4,000 people who may succeed in their claims pensions for the rest of their lives. Is that a brutal or a humane thing to do? As a member of a Government which has to take money out of people's pockets before it can spend it, I think that is, within limits, a fairly reasonable and generous proposal. I think that every one of you Deputies, when you think it out for yourselves, see the situation in your own countryside and, let us call them, the line-ball cases that are entitled under the law at present to nothing, and see a law introduced that at least, if they succeed, will give them pensions for the rest of their lives, will say that that is a pretty fair proposition. If the condition were laid down that not only were you to give them pensions for the rest of their natural lives, but that you have to go back over 15 or 25 years, then the whole proposition would be too formidable financially for me to approach as an individual Minister or for this Government to approach in view of the finances of the country.

I had to put that financial situation to the Dáil in order to explain to the Dáil why we were not going back and making these pensions retrospective. Certain Deputies referred to it as a brutal act, as something like an injustice to individuals. We have a precedent before us under the 1934 Act when 20 claims were reopened under the 1924 Act. Not one of these pensions was made retrospective over the period back to 1924. No Government, in any place or at any time, has any liking for legislation of a financial kind that is retrospective in its effect. Budgeting would be topsy-turvy in every Parliament if Bills of a financial nature were to come in from time to time and be made retrospective in their effects. I am suggesting to the fair and reasonable minds of Deputies that we may not be doing in this Bill all that we would like to be doing for the people concerned, but we are doing something. There is the old saying that "half a loaf is better than no bread", and if a person is starving, well then it is considerably better than no bread.

Now, there were suggestions made in the course of the debate in regard to a definition, or the lack of a definition, of active service. I, together with my advisers, did consider that. My two, three or four predecessors all considered that, and each one in turn right down along the line over the last 25 years, decided that it was better leave that as it is to the discretion of the Referee flanked by advisers on both sides, one flank being a representative of the Old I.R.A. I was interested in that particular view, and I was strengthened in my belief that it is better leave things as they are by the views expressed by a number of the Deputies opposite who had intimate and internal experience of the working of a Pensions Act. I was particularly impressed by the views of one—I think it was Deputy Allen—that we would be doing an injustice: that we would be tightening and restricting the gate instead of opening it wider by attempting to get a clear verbal definition of that particular term "active service". Definitions can be helpful and definitions can be very dangerous and very tricky. There is a certain amount of flexibility about the situation at the present moment, a flexibility that leaves it to the judgement of the Referee and his assistants to say whether the type of service was a reasonable type within the four corners of the Act, and whether it was one that should carry a pension or not. I think that, on the whole, it is better leave it as it is as far as definitions go.

But remember, there is another thing. This is 1949, and this particular Bill harks back to the Act of 1934 and to the Act of 1924. If we were to inject into a Bill in the year 1949 a regid definition with regard to what is meant by "active service" or "pensionable service" we would rip up the whole administration of the previous Acts. What would come out of this Bill if we were to do that? As sure as we are here, there would have to be another Bill to review every pension already given in the light of the new definition.

Mr. Byrne

There is a definition in the previous Acts.

Dr. O'Higgins

A clear definition of "active service" was never given. It is well to understand that a review is not just a one-way sword. If you were to rip up the past administration and throw it all open to review, then the review would have to be two ways. It might add some number of pensions on one side and would subtract on the other. From the first day that I came over here I adopted an attitude with regard to many things. In connection with pension cases, or statements made that pensions were withheld unjustly or that others were granted irregularly, the one attitude I adopted from the beginning, and intend to adhere to to the finish, is that I may have been a great number of different things in my life, but I was never yet a coroner, and I am not going, in the latter days of my life, to turn myself into a coroner and hold inquests on all those pensions that were assessed in the past. Whoever has a pension let him keep it. I do not mean to revive, review or reopen any assessment that was given in the past.

There were references to the type of board: of a Referee sitting with two representatives of the Old I.R.A. on one side with a representative of the Department of Defence and a representative of the Department of Finance. The Referee was there sitting in between these four and his judgment was final. There were, naturally, mixed views with regard to the type or design of the board. A number of Deputies with a reasonable amount of experience—particularly Deputy Moylan—were strongly of the view that a balanced board of that particular type, viewed from results and from the type of case they had to adjudicate on and the kind of mixed knowledge that is necessary before a proper judgement could be arrived at, was as good as, or better than, any other you could get. Now it is a mistake to take it that the duty or the task of a civil servant of the State on a board is to obstruct and deprive claimants of their prospect of pensions. I would be very sorry to think that or that our Irish Civil Service would adopt an attitude of attempting to deprive any simple person of his simple rights. Remember that these people might have been dealing with the cases of brothers and cousins, many of them in the same fight that we are talking about, but what they would do and what their task would be was to ensure, so far as they could ensure it, that administratively, in the sense of accountancy, etc., the Act would be carried out.

I have had experience of civil servants in different capacities. I have seen the man who on the Monday most strongly resisted the claim of an individual and on the Tuesday that man would be in fighting like a tiger on the case of somebody else who was a potential drawer from the State pool, the reason being that that civil servant was satisfied, on examination of the case, that the claim was not a reasonable one and he would resist it. On the Wednesday his attitude might be different, even when perhaps public men had ceased to be interested in a case. I think, on the whole, the people of this State are getting very good, very honest and very honourable service from their civil servants.

Question agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 16th November, 1949.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Nov 1949