I have already made my position clear on the section. We are going to oppose the section, because it contains the clause which makes it clear that the operative date means the date of the passing of this Bill. The Minister, in his closing statement on the Money Resolution, shook his fist in the face of the Deputies who had the temerity to raise their voices on the Second Stage and to threaten them with the effect of failure to pass this section.
In Committee on Finance. - Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
We are on Section 2. Where does the operative date arise?
In the last paragraph.
Yes.
The Minister has wakened up to it.
He is wide awake. He has got a bit confused after the Deputy's oration.
The operative date is in Section 2, and if the Minister will take the opportunity of reading the debates—I do not know whether he has read them or not or whether he listened to the Second Reading discussion or not—he will find that the objection to that particular clause of Section 2 was as strong on his own side as it is on this side. There is no use in the Minister telling the House that if this section is defeated the Bill is defeated. He knows that that is mere twaddle. It does not follow at all. The Government defeat recently on an Estimate did not mean that the Estimate went by the board. The Estimate came along a couple of days afterwards and was passed.
In the same form.
What we are asking here is merely the same date as that which exists in the Act of 1934.
Why not 1924?
I explained that in the discussion on the Money Resolution before the Ceann Comhairle ruled me out of order.
You are all wrong.
I made it clear.
To yourself.
As far as this side of the House is concerned.
To yourself.
When the Minister talks lightly about the Opposition's trickery, and so on, and political dodgery, he is thinking in terms of his own tactics rather than the tactics of decent people on this side. Surely we are entitled, if we believe injustice is being committed, to refer to the fact. I believe implicitly that there is injustice being perpetrated in forcing this date on people who, if they had succeeded under the 1934 Act, would have been entitled to payment from a certain date.
You would not let them.
What about the 1945 Act?
Deputy Kissane has pointed out here that this is an appeal Bill. The Minister himself referred to the fact that it is an appeal Bill. It is merely an appeal of the 1934 Act. Surely whatever is contained in that Act ought to come into operation and the payment of the moneys which will be due to those who succeed under this Bill should be made as from 1st October, 1934. That is all we are asking the House to do. We are not worried whether it is passed or not. I want to assure the House and the Minister—because he seems to be fearful of it—that we are not even regarding the defeat of the Government on this as a major issue. We are prepared, if the House decides to vote against this, to accept it merely as an amendment of something which we object to and not to take it as a major defeat of the Government or anything else.
I think it is better to be honest with the House from both sides. It is all very well for a Deputy opposite to say that a vote on this particular thing will not be regarded as of any importance. That kind of thing might be convincing if it came from an inexperienced Deputy. But that kind of superficial, plausible argument coming from a man who sat over here for the best part of a dozen years as a Minister, and when it is in reference to the operative clause of an important Bill, does not carry conviction to my mind and I doubt if it carries conviction to the Deputy's mind.
That is the type of insult the Minister has been throwing.
That is a type of argument calculated to deceive and to mislead the inexperienced Deputies who may be present in the House. Does not Deputy Traynor know that if you leave a Bill of this kind without an operative date, you leave it in a state of suspended animation, neither operative nor inoperative, but floating some feet over the carpet between the two of us? That is the effect of this particular vote which the Deputy claims will be of no importance. It is far more honest to tell the House definitely that the vote is of immense importance, that it means the life or death of the particular Bill that is before us.
The Bill may not be all that any one or every one of us desires, but it is a Bill, stripped naked by me, and laid before the Dáil in all its crude ugliness, and I am saying: "There it is for what it is worth. It is worth something and accept it for what it is worth."
I accept clearly the position as stated by the Minister as to the effect the rejection of this section would have on the Bill. I am not what is known as an experienced Deputy; I am an inexperienced Deputy; but I do realise that if this section is taken out of the Bill, the heart is cut out of the Bill and it is useless. Difficulty, of course, arises form the restrictions imposed on the Dáil. I have serious objections to the definition of the expression "the operative date". I endeavoured by amendments to meet them. Those amendments have been ruled out of order. Consequently, no one in this House, with the exception of the Minister, has any right to put down an amendment that can change the operative date, and if there is no operative date for the Act to take effect, then there is no Act at all.
That does not mean that I am in favour of the operative date as set out in the section. I am not in favour of it. I believe that as this is, as the Minister states, an Act having for its purpose the establishment of an appeal tribunal to investigate cases of persons who have grievances, many of them justified, where the appeal is successful, the appellants should be placed in the same position as if they had succeeded in their application in the first instance.
I do not want to take the line of saying: "If we had no change of Government, we would have no Bill". I know that that is so. I know that the 1945 Act, which has been mentioned here, put an end, as far as the last Government was concerned, to appeals and, whether there were justices or injustices to be done, the door was closed and that was the end of it. I do not accept the line of saying: "That is what you would have done. If you had been here, you would have done nothing at all. We propose to go half the way." I do not agree with that at all. If a certain number of people succeed in their appeals, it will be clear evidence that they were unjustly deprived of pensions to which they are entitled, and, if they were unjustly deprived of pensions to which they are entitled, it is my view that, as a matter of justice, their pensions should be dated back to the date on which they should have got their pensions under the legislation under which their claims were investigated. That is my view, but, as I said on the Money Resolution, I am certainly not going to vote against this Bill. Even with its imperfections, it will bring about a position in which quite a number of people who should be in receipt of certificates of service or military service certificates will get them and will be entitled, as a result, to pensions under the Acts.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not agree with the operative date set out in the section, but I could not bring myself into the position of voting against the section, because, if I did, it would mean that I helped to destroy the Bill as it stands. I do not know who mentioned the word "twisting" just now.
I think it was one of the arch-twisters.
There is nothing about it in the section.
There is no other approach to it. Quite a large body of persons, organised and unorganised, were delighted that the Minister had redeemed the promise to introduce an amending Act. It would have been a good stroke, apart entirely from the question of the justice of the claims, to say: "We are going to finish, once and for all, this question of claims to military pensions. We are setting up this board and giving them full authority to investigate the claims and, in those cases in which they grant the applications, we will let the awards be effective as from the date they should have been effective."
The result of making the operative date the passing of the Act has been to cause a good deal of disappointment, to invite a good deal of criticism and to postpone to another day the final determination of this problem, because the Minister knows very well that if, under this Bill, 1,000 people receive certificates of military service or service certificates under both Acts and are paid their pensions with effect from the operative date set out in the section, they will, by organised effort, bring pressure to bear on Deputies, on the Minister and on the Government to have these pensions paid retrospectively, and that problem will be coming up by means of parliamentary question, by means of deputations to the Minister and by means of political influence and otherwise. I should like to see the matter settled once and for all, and I think—and it ought to be acknowledged—that in introducing this Bill, in making provision for the establishment of this appeal tribunal and in undoing the harm contained in the 1945 Act, the Minister has done very valuable work, but that work has been nullified to a large extent by making the operative date the passing of this Act, instead of making it the effective date under the Acts it purports to amend.
It is clear now to everybody that the Minister has put the House under a certain amount of duress when he states that the defeat of this section, which contains the operative date, would bring about the downfall of the measure itself.
Is that not so?
Of course, it is.
I do not hold with the Minister at all.
You rarely do, but you are rarely right.
Just an elementary knowledge of law.
I have a better knowledge of law than the Deputy.
You only qualified with me, so do not be "codding".
Qualification in law does not arise.
This is an amending Bill which proposes to amend the Act of 1934 and, if the section containing the operative date were defeated, the operative date in the Act of 1934 would hold. Is that not so?
Glory be! Where did you get that?
Apart from that entirely, if the Minister and his Government suffered a defeat on this section, the only thing they would have to do would be to bring in an amendment to meet the wishes of the House.
The dishonest wishes of Fianna Fáil.
That is what happened in 1944—but we found ourselves in the country all the same.
There would be no difficulty about it. We would have put down amendments covering this point, but, as Deputy Cowan has pointed out, we were debarred from doing so because this is a Móney Bill, and, it being a Money Bill, no ordinary Deputy has the right to table an amendment to any of its provisions. The only person who can do so is the Minister, and if a majority of this House were to decide in favour of having retrospective legislation enacted here to cover claims that will be made under this Bill and to give the claimants payment back to 1st October, 1934, the Minister could meet the position. He has, as I have said, put the House under duress when he states that this Bill would suffer defeat if Section 2 were defeated. I do not hold with that at all.
As a person who suffers from no temerity, as suggested by Deputy Traynor, but as a person who is genuinely honest in looking for retrospective effect, I will say this straight out, that I am going to vote for this section and the Bill on the basis—and I think it is an honest one —that it is an instalment of justice. It is not what I want and not what I am going to be content with, if I can influence, at any stage in future, a travelling of the whole road. Let me nail once and for all, however, the equivocation of Deputy Kissane—the deliberate equivocation of Deputy Kissane, I suggest—because he has sufficient knowledge to know that he is equivocating. He knows perfectly well that he is deliberately trying to misrepresent the whole position and he knows in his heart that the defeat of this section would mean leaving the Bill in the air.
I know no such thing.
You know it perfectly well and I tell you now that you are deliberately, with that knowledge, trying to do so. I will not retreat from that position and I want this country to know it. I stood up in this House as a young man genuinely asking for retrospective effect for I.R.A. claims, not having had hand, act or part in any legislation affecting the I.R.A. in this House before; but I want the country to know the complete face-about of Deputy Traynor and his wishy-washy colleagues. You slammed the door in 1945, and you slammed it with a viciousness that was typical of your whole Administration.
My whole Administration did not slam the door on anybody.
With all respect, a Leas-Chinn Chomhairle——
The Deputy might address the Chair and use less of the second person.
The 1945 Act, piloted through this House by Deputy Traynor, then Minister for Defence, sealed for all time, as far as the Fianna Fáil Government were concerned, the fate of the Old I.R.A. and left whatever residue of grievances, or alleged grievances that were there, to fester for all time. I am saying now that there is something dishonest, something more than a breath of suspicion about the action challenging this section. Why? Because the present Minister, even though he has not given us a perfect Bill, has at least opened up an avenue of hope to Old I.R.A. men, whom you deliberately excluded from all hope. I say to the country and to the Old I.R.A. men, that I am voting for this Bill and all it contains, because I look upon it as an instalment of the final measure that, like Deputy Cowan, I hope some day is going to settle for all time the just claims of these people and to give justice to those who made it possible for us to argue either for or against their case in this House to-day.
When this Government came into office we were told that no longer were we going to have "yes-men", that the opinions of all members of the House were to count and to guide the Government. That was, of course, 20 months ago. On the Second Reading of this Bill I think every Deputy who spoke, on all sides of the House, pleaded that the payments of these pensions should be dated back to the operative date of the 1934 Act. We found ourselves in the position that we could not get amendments to that effect accepted by the Chair. The Minister was the only person who could move such an amendment. He has not done so and a few minutes ago he practically threatened his supporters that if they attempted to follow out what apparently were their opinions a week ago——
Do not suggest that I am one of the "yes-men".
These opinions were expressed apparently honestly, but now, when we have come to the stage when the opinions could be put into practice, in spite of the offer from this side, we and Deputies on his own side are threatened by the Minister. We are now going to have an opportunity of seeing where the "yes-men" are. I cannot for the life of me see how the defeat of this section is going to end this Bill. There is nothing to prevent the Minister meeting the wishes of the House by bringing in an amendment. It was stated on Second Reading, and twice again to-day by Deputy Traynor, that we were not opposing the Bill or opposing the Money Resolution. We wanted sufficient——
Why did you not put that into practice in your own Bill?
Let me deal with the matter now.
Do not call "yes-men" to others who were not "yes-men" when you were.
You said "yes" to a proposal to close the door on these men.
In 1945 an Act was passed by the Fianna Fáil Government after 11 years, after the time for applications had been extended 20 times. Everybody who thought he had a case under that Act got an opportunity of applying even then and amongst those who made all this row were people who have not been able to convince the Referee that they had a case. This Government has taken the opposite view but we have yet to see how many of these men are going to get through the same machinery as they failed to get through before. It is the same machinery. The only difference is that they are getting a further opportunity and if that further opportunity shows that some men were dealt with unjustly before, why are not they getting what they would have got, if their applications had gone through in the first instance?
Why should you vote to deny them that opportunity?
If Deputy Traynor in 1945 had done what the Minister proposes to do now with the men who will qualify under this Bill, would the Minister then have urged that it would be sufficient to pay these pensions from the date of the passing of the Bill? He certainly would not. He would have said that they were entitled to draw their pensions from the same date as their comrades, from the 1st October, 1934. He has now an opportunity of providing for that but he will not avail of that opportunity. Instead he is threatening his supporters that if they attempt to follow out the opinions they expressed before, it will mean an end of the Bill. Would he have accepted from Deputy Traynor in 1945 what he said here to-day himself, that it was not all he wished to do but it was all that he could do? He would not; he would have demanded justice.
The Minister and Deputy Collins have talked in such a dictatorial manner here to-day that it would seem as if nobody else had a right to express an opinion. We are here to express our opinions but apparently an attempt is being made to suppress Deputies on this side who expressed their honest views on this matter. There is nothing inconsistent in our attitude on this Bill, in our saying that if there were any injustices done in the past, we wish to see full justice done now. I want to stress that no man is going to get anything under this Bill unless he can establish that an injustice was done to him previously. He is working under the same law and the same machinery as was operated under the previous Acts. There is no reason whatever, though it may not be the Minister's idea, why any man who qualifies under this Bill should not have his pension dated back to 1934 as were the pensions of his colleagues who qualified under the previous Acts.
Why not date them back to 1924?
In cases where they are entitled to have the pensions dated back to 1924 they should date from that year.
What, then, about your 1934 Act?
The Minister tried to tell us that the same thing was done in 1934. He did not attempt to deal with sub-section (3) of Section 3 read by Deputy Traynor. He referred to another section but he did not read it, even though Deputy Traynor asked him.
I thought the Deputy was able to read.
The 1934 Act dealt with classes of people who could not apply hitherto. It was not an amendment of the 1924 Act, as this is an amendment of the 1934 Act. It dealt with new classes of people altogether and there is no analogy whatever between this Bill and the 1934 Act in reference to the 1924 Act. This is definitely an amendment of the 1934 Act. We have had a lot of hard words thrown across here. We have never stood for injustice to anyone. Everybody knows that, if there has been any case of injustice, it was done, not by this Party, but by the Referee and, inadvertently, at that, as will happen. We have instances of it every other week in the courts. It is due to human frailty. That is the reason we are insisting on this, because we do not want injustice done to anybody. I thought that Deputies on the other side, who expressed their views so strongly on the Second Reading, would give us an opportunity of seeing whether they are really the Deputies they were made out to be 20 months ago, or whether they are the yes-men they used to taunt us with being.
The Deputy who has made this very impassioned speech was, when he sat on this side of the House behind Deputy Traynor when Deputy Traynor was Minister for Defence, the most obedient and subservient of the Fianna Fáil supporters. What we have just listened to this evening from him, to my surprise, is the greatest exhibition of political hypocrisy that I ever witnessed in this House during a period of 28 years.
What is this Bill? This Bill, and the Deputy knows it perfectly well, is brought in for the purpose of giving justice to applicants for military service pensions who were treated in an unfair way both by the Fianna Fáil Administration and, if you like, the Administration that went before it. Deputy Traynor got up in this House before he went out of office and made a final announcement that the machinery that he had at his disposal for dealing with applications for military service pensions was to come to an end at the end of 1948 and the people who were administering that machinery were being paid off or transferred to other positions. Is that so or is it not so? I want Deputy Traynor to answer that.
I will answer it.
The section of the 1945 Act referred to by the Minister proves that Deputy Traynor—I am sure he was acting according to his conscience and I would not like to make any personal charge of unfairness against him—thought he had disposed finally of every genuine application that had been submitted during the period of his Ministry. Deputy Colley has stated—I hope he is wrong and that the Minister for Defence will correct him and put him right—that the machinery that is going to operate under this Bill is the same kind of political machinery that operated under the Fianna Fáil Administration.
We were told repeatedly during the Fianna Fáil Administration that if fresh evidence was put forward on appeal the case would go back to the Referee and be dealt with and the individual concerned I assumed—I may be wrong in this—would get an opportunity of making an appearance with the witnesses that he wanted to bring forward to prove that there was new evidence available as justification for the payment of a pension which was not produced at the original hearing. I know where some of these appeals went to. They went back to the local administration that was supporting the Government——
How is this relevant?
——a crowd of yes-men, not members of this House, but members of the organisation in the country. That was the appeal court to which these cases were sent.
Will Deputy Davin give me a chance? How is that relevant to the section we are discussing?
I never suspected, and I believe Deputy Colley is wrong in stating, that the machinery to operate this Bill will be the same kind of political machinery we had in reference to the Military Service Pensions Act of 1934. If I thought it was going to be the same kind of machinery, I would vote against it.
There was no political machinery operating.
Do you mean to say that the brigade councils were political machines? I certainly say they were not.
Does the Minister agree with Deputy Davin that the Pensions Act was operated by political machinery? It would be interesting to know if that is so.
I will give the Deputy my view.
What about Enniscorthy?
I want to say, in regard to the statement made by Deputy Davin about the 1945 Act, that the Deputy himself was the most persistent Deputy in urging me to bring to a conclusion the administration of the 1934 Act. He actually used the words: "Whether the applicants were successful or not, bring that Act to a speedy conclusion." I am not quoting that from any volume of the Dáil debates but, if the Deputy contests the statement, on another stage I will produce the quotation.
You have professed to quote the words.
No one was more persistent than the Deputy in urging me to bring the 1934 Act to a speedy conclusion.
There was nothing wrong in that.
I want to say this in regard to the hearing of cases under that Act. It is well known that there were brigade committees supporting the applicants, and 30,000 applicants had their cases examined. If any one of these applications was being turned down, the brigade committee was warned of that and given 28 days in which they could bring to the notice of the Referee any evidence which would support the applicant's claim and, perhaps, secure its success. At the end of 28 days, if the brigade committee had taken no action, then the applicant was given 21 days during which he could appeal himself and produce whatever evidence he thought desirable to prove his claim.
I do not see how all this is relevant to the section.
It is relevant to the statement which has been made by the Minister and which was taken up by other Deputies and now, finally, by Deputy Davin.
Can you relate it to the Minister's statement?
With your permission, Sir, I should like to reply to that statement.
I shall let you reply to what has been said, but the Chair is doubtful as to its relevancy.
It may not be relevant to the section. I admit it is not, but I want to reply to the statement that the 1945 Act prevented men from making their claims. It has been pointed out by Deputy Colley that for 11 years the system operated under which an applicant who failed to convince the Referee that he had a case was entitled to have his case examined for 28 days by a brigade committee and he was given 21 days after that to make a personal appeal.
Might I put a question to the Deputy? The Deputy said that people had an opportunity of making their case to the Referee. There was a great number of cases that never got before the Referee, and the courts held that the Department was acting illegally in not allowing them to go before the Referee. Certain orders had been made absolute. Before the other 100 odd cases could be made absolute, the Act of 1945 was introduced. It banged the door in the face of all those who had never even got before the Referee.
And who had been denied their rights under the existing law.
A racket.
The Referee was entitled to act under regulations made by the Minister.
What did the courts find?
He believed that he was entitled to do that in order to meet the claims made by Deputy Davin and others like him to expedite the hearing of cases, and he took the action that he did take. The only thing the court found was that the Referee should have been sitting with the members of the board.
The Minister defied the courts, and that is where the scandal occurred.
Now, as regards the 1945 Act, let us make the position as clear as we can. As I say, for 11 years this system operated——
An irregular system.
——whereby men were allowed to appeal for a period of 28 days through their brigade committees. At the end of that period they were entitled to 21 days' notice, and if, in these 21 days, they could produce further evidence, the Referee was prepared to hear them again. At the end of that period there was a still further period. They were allowed to appeal again to the Referee, and to reappeal and reappeal.
For nine years the law was denied to them.
Deputy Davin and other Deputies in this House insisted, over a long period of years, that we should speed up the hearing of these cases. It was in order to meet the demand from this House to speed up the hearing of these cases that the action which the Referee then took was taken. Surely, at the end of 11 years everyone would believe that every possible case that could be heard and that could be appealed was heard and was appealed. In addition to all that, from the passing of the 1945 Act, 11 months' notice was given to every individual who wished to make an appeal. It was made very clear that the appeals would be heard within these 11 months. Quite a number of appeals came in and they were heard and dealt with. Why people should say that we shut, banged and closed the door I cannot understand.
This Bill purports to be an appeal Bill. If it purports to be an appeal Bill, all we ask is that, whatever rights an appellant would have under the 1934 Act, he would have them under this amendment of the 1934 Act. That is all we are asking.
Even though you closed the door yourself.
Even though anything you like to say.
You cannot trick out of that now.
You are very fond of that language.
I want to say a further word in regard to this. The statement has been made that the Minister has threatened people on this side of the House that they must vote for this section as it stands. Now, there are only two alternatives. One is to vote for the section as it stands, and the other is to vote against it. If the section is negatived by the House, then that is the end of the Bill. I have made my position clear in so far as I can do so, as to the date from which this measure should operate. I want to see this Bill passed. I do not want to see it destroyed at this stage, and it is for that reason I have stated that I must vote for the section and keep the Bill alive rather than vote against it and kill it. Opportunities will arise, unfortunately, of pressing the Minister and the Government to change the operative date. I think that even at this stage, before the Bill finally becomes law, that either here or in the Seanad the Minister should agree to the appeals that have been made to him to change the operative date.
The 1945 Act has been mentioned. I am glad that that aspect of the 1945 Act has been mentioned, the aspect which said "the courts in particular cases have decided that an injustice was done to particular individuals; we will not allow any other person to go to the courts and get a declaration from them that their applications were improperly dealt with by the Referee." That, at the time, was in my view very objectionable legislation. It can be said that this Bill is undoing that objectionable legislation. I want to press this point home to the Minister, that if the 1945 Act had not been passed and if those people whose claims were not heard in accordance with the provisions of the 1934 Act, had been unable to go to court to get the declaration that they were entitled to—not the cases that had already been decided— they would have had their cases reopened and if they were successful their pensions would have been paid as from the operative date in the 1934 Act. As far as these particular individuals are concerned, this Bill does not place them in the position they would have been in had the 1945 Act not been passed to deprive them of their rights. Now, I feel strongly in regard to the operative date in so far as these people are concerned.
Within the Bill, there is another section of people. They are the people who never applied either under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act. I say that in their cases, where they did not apply under either Act, the same case cannot or ought not to be made for retrospective payments. The payments in their cases should undoubtedly take effect as from the passing of this Bill or, as I have tried to cover by amendment, from the date they make their applications. They are in a separate category from the people who have already applied under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act and who have been turned down.
The Minister has stated that the cost of this Bill will be approximately £50,000. Now, I take it that is only what might be termed a reasonable shot in the dark and that such an estimate may be out a considerable sum. The Minister cannot help that. I think he hit on the figure of £50,000 as, possibly, one which would indicate that there would be a charge of £1,000,000 on public funds in a lump sum if the Act were retrospective. If more than £50,000 was estimated, naturally the lump sum to be paid as arrears would be larger than that. I feel, also, that while the interpretation as to active service remains as it is, the number of people who will be successful in having their claims granted will be very small.
The Deputy seems to be travelling a bit now.
No. I am pointing out to the Minister that if he were making the operative date retrospective, the amount he considers would have to be paid out of public funds does not seem to me to be accurate. I am just putting it from that point of view. That is why I will press the Minister at this and at subsequent stages and I know he will be so pressed by other Deputies and individuals and organisations both here and in the Seanad, to make the operative date retrospective.
He will end up like a pancake, pressed flat.
The Bill?
No, the Minister.
I think the country would be grateful to the Minister if we got the measure of justice we are pressing for in regard to the Old I.R.A. I press it on the Minister that, if the passing of the 1945 Act deprived individuals of their just rights to a pension, he should, by this measure, restore them to the position they would have been in in 1945 if that Act had not been passed. It is clear from what the Minister has said that at this stage he will not make this section retrospective, but I press on him that at some stage before the Bill is made law, he should make it retrospective so that we will not in a year or two have the trouble of a long debate with reference to the amendment of this measure.
I find it hard to understand the basis of Deputy Traynor's objection to the section. His objection is, in effect, an attempt to negative the Bill. I could understand the arguments advanced by Deputy Traynor if they were advanced from this side of the House, or even by back-bench colleagues of Deputy Traynor's Party, but I cannot understand how Deputy Traynor, who was the author of the 1945 Act, can adopt the self-righteous attitude that he now adopts. It is inconceivable to me that Deputy Traynor can expect the House to accept seriously his concern that there should be retrospection in so far as these pension payments are concerned, when he was the author of the Act that made it impossible for many of the people whose cases will be governed by this measure to draw one penny pension at all.
As I said on the Money Resolution, we, in Clann na Poblachta, are not enthusiastic about this particular method of requiting those who gave service to the country in the past, or of dealing with cases of hardship occasioned by service rendered in the past. We feel and have felt that a preferable way would be to deal with cases of that nature by some generous type of grant where circumstances of hardship exist. However, the whole body of pension legislation is there and we must accept it as we find it. I, in common with other Deputies, urge on the Minister that if he is to do full justice, the operative date should be the 30th October, 1934, but at any rate, it is preferable that this modicum of justice should be done rather than that no attempt would be made to remedy the position.
I would like to refer to one matter mentioned by Deputy Cowan and that was the distinction which he sought to draw—I do not know what were the motives that prompted him—between those who applied for pensions prior to the passage of this Act and those who never made any application for a pension. I do not know what groups of individuals Deputy Cowan has in mind. If he has in mind those who never made any application for a pension, not on grounds of expediency but on grounds of principle, then it was wrong and incorrect and improper of him to suggest to the Minister that a distinction should be made adverse to their position. I think it was a pity he did that, not that I think it is a matter of great practical importance, but it is regrettable that Deputy Cowan should single out people who never applied for pensions and never will apply for pensions.
I am surprised to observe some Deputies trying to blow hot and cold in this matter. If the passing of the 1945 Act, as is alleged, was an injustice, are we going to have a further injustice perpetrated on the members of the I.R.A. by having the operative date fixed in 1950 or 1951, whereas the pensions payable under the 1924 Act were payable from 1924 and under the 1934 Act from 1934?
That is not so. The 1924 Act, as amended by the 1934 Act, deprived them of the retrospective payments.
The Minister opposed that at the time.
You will now have the unfortunate position of one Old I.R.A. man going to the bank to get his cheque cashed, although he will be paid only from 1950, whereas some of his former comrades have been paid since 1924. That is a further injustice and it is something that will not be good in the interests of the country. This debate is not what it should be. Payment of pensions or gratuities to Old I.R.A. men should not be treated in this light-hearted political way. It is a national matter and it should be treated as a national matter and it should not be accompanied by the type of sneers we have been observing here. I have a definite objection to any of my former comrades being subjected to sneers of any kind. I want to nail on the head a statement made by Deputy Davin that some of the claims were sent back by the Referee to political organisations supporting the Fianna Fáil Government. That is untrue. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. That statement is, in effect, a reflection on the brigade committees composed, as they were, of former brigade officers of divergent political views. As a member of one of those advisory boards, I say that the political affiliations of no applicant were taken into consideration. I can assure the House, on the contrary, that we were doubly careful when we knew a claimant differed from us politically.
Let us consider the section now.
The Minister has told us that this Bill will cost the country about £50,000 a year. I think that sum is a clear indication that only a few people will qualify. If the Minister accedes to the request made to him to make the operative date 1934 I do not think any very strong argument can be advanced against it.
Before the Minister replies I would like to make an explanation in regard to an observation of Deputy C. Lehane. I was trying to draw a distinction between a person who applied for a pension and had his claim turned down and in whose case it will now be found under this Act that that turning down was unjust. I say that in that case the pension should be paid as from the date it would have been paid had he got justice in the first instance. In the case of persons who did not apply for pensions at any stage, I think it is reasonable that the operative date in their case should be the passing of this Act. I have in my mind no particular groups of people at all. I am quite sure that those who refused pensions under both the 1924 and the 1934 Acts will not apply under this Act. Their principles will not let them.
One or two points have come to light in this debate in which I am interested. The first is that this Bill is not going to solve our problem. That is definitely admitted. In fact, it will only go a short distance towards solving it. With regard to retrospection, a man is either entitled to his pension or he is not. If he is entitled to his pension, he is entitled to his full pension and he should be paid his pension from the year 1934. If he does not get retrospective payment discontent and dissatisfaction will be created. Reference was made to political use in relation to this Bill. Political use was made of this Bill during the general election. Some people get very sore now when reference is made to that. I say there is no Party that did not make political use of this.
That is not on the section.
Reference was made to legal proceedings and decisions given therein adverse to the Government. The fact that a verdict was given against the Government did not bestow a pension on the applicants. It is no good implying the Act was faulty when the verdict did not in fact succeed in getting pensions for these people. I appeal to the Minister to make the payment of these pensions retrospective. I think all of us try to keep Party politics out of a matter like this. Our main object is to do justice to these men. There may be some legal quibbles. I am not a lawyer, but legal quibbles do not give much satisfaction to people who have expectations. I appeal to the Minister to make the payment of these pensions retrospective, if not for the whole period for at least some portion of it.
Question:—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I am giving notice that I intend to oppose this section. This section extends the powers of the Minister in regard to deduction from pensions. It extends the powers that are in the 1924 and the 1934 Acts and it makes provision that I think will be unworkable in practice. In the rules and regulations in other pension Acts this new clause has been introduced, enabling the Minister to withhold pensions until the amount of a deduction has been ascertained. Sub-section (3) says:—
"for the purposes of this section each of the following shall be a State authority:—A Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works or the Irish Land Commission".
As I see and understand it, quite a number of people who are in receipt of pensions under the 1924 and 1934 Acts are farmers who owe and pay money as annuities to the Irish Land Commission, and I think it will create a lot of confusion if the Irish Land Commission has to keep records of pensions, and whenever a person who pays annuities is in arrears, notify the Department of Defence to have that man's pension withheld. It can create a lot of confusion and trouble, but the Minister will be able to tell us how it works out in practice. I think that where a pension is payable by the Minister it should be payable and payable on the date it falls due for payment and if the Minister, the Commissioners of Public Works, the Irish Land Commission or any other public authority has a claim against an individual they have all the rights in law to follow that claim to the extent of obtaining a decree in the ordinary way.
The right to set off?
I am not saying that the right to set off is there but even if it were provided I would go a long way to accept it. The administration will be somewhat involved because a State Department must have a record and if a man who falls into arrears is in receipt of a pension the Department of Defence will be notified to hold it up in order to meet a possible claim until the amount to be withheld is ascertained. It will be withheld while the claim against the man is being formulated and that may be quite a long period. There is a novel extension of powers in the section and for that reason I oppose it.
I would explain to the House in answer to the Deputy that this is not a new section. The principle contained in it has been in every Army and Defence Forces Bill since 1923.
Not as extensive as this.
Heretofore the phraseology was "State Department". The only difference between the phraseology of previous Bills and this one is that "State Department" has been clarified more in this Bill than in the previous Bills. The administrative or machinery difficulties which have been pointed out have been there all the time and surmounted. I think that most Deputies will agree that it is reasonable if the State is making issues of money to an individual or credit corporation and there are moneys due on the other hand to the State, that those moneys should be subtracted before the issues are made. The point I want to make to Captain Cowan is that there is nothing original in this section. It is really a copy of sections that have appeared in all Army and Defence Forces Bills since 1923 up to the present moment. They have never given rise to any particular difficulty in the way of machinery nor to any particular grievances on the part of the recipients or potential recipients.
Arising out of the Minister's reply to Deputy Cowan's opposition to the section, I wonder would the Minister indicate to the House whether he would consider introducing a Ministerial amendment or addition to the section limiting the period during which payment might be withheld by inserting into sub-section (2) some words of limitation as to time? I have had experience of collecting pensions from a section of the Department of Defence, particuarly in cases where an amount was due to a deceased pensioner. I cannot recall any case where there was what could be described as gross or undue delay, but I think that the Minister's point would be met and Deputy Cowan's fears allayed if the Minister were to put in some reasonable words of limitation as to period in sub-section (2) or if the Minister had an additional sub-section to the section. I would recommend that course to the Minister.
I remember the section that was in the 1924 and 1934 Acts, although I have not the section before me at the moment. I think this sub-section (2), which authorises the Minister to withhold the amount until the deduction is ascertained, is comparatively new and has been introduced only in recent Army legislation. Under the 1924 and 1934 Acts—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, as I am speaking from recollection—the Minister had power to withhold to meet a claim; but now, where there is what may be termed a contingent or possible claim and the Minister is notified of that, although the claim may not be clearly formulated and may not exist at all, the Minister gets power under sub-section (2) to withhold the pension until the deduction is ascertained. I think that was not in the 1924 or 1934 Acts and that it has been introduced only recently in Army legislation.
I have argued this on another Bill and was not able to carry the House with me against the Minister; and I cannot do more now than express my objection to this wide power of withholding the pension until the amount of a claim is ascertained. Where a man has a pension and is depending on it, say, to pay his land annuity, it would be entirely wrong that the pension should be held up because he owes the land annuity. In such a case, it would be much better to pay him and let the Land Commission use whatever powers they have to recover the annuity in the ordinary way. I do not know whether the Land Commission, in actual fact, have up to the present been endeavouring to obtain land annuities through the machinery of the Department of Defence, but when this section is passed I am quite sure they would endeavour to avail of it. Where a man's annuity is in arrear for a few weeks and would be paid if he got the pension, it is wrong to withhold it because the annuity was not paid on the due date. The Land Commission may not avail of this section at all, where a man happens to be a few weeks in arrear, but I think this extensive provision, to withhold a pension until a possible claim is definitely ascertained, is giving too much power to the Minister for Defence and to his Department in administering the Bill.
Those powers have been there previously. They may be used with regard to a debt due to the Department of Defence before they issue money out; but no case has ever come under my attention so far of any grievance arising out of the power to withhold the pension pending a possible claim by any other State Department. The particular section here is not a mandatory one: it is a permissive section, and the same permissive section is in the previous Acts. It would be entirely unreasonable for the Land Commission, say, to make an application to the Minister for Defence saying: "This man is three months in arrears with his land annuity; until we see how this shapes out, we will hold up his pension." Certainly my instruction, and the instruction of any reasonable Minister for Defence under such circumstances, is that there would be no justification for such a step. I put it to Deputies that this is one of those powers that may be given to a Minister and that would be bad if they were abused, but until there is sufficient evidence that they are being or have been abused by a Minister, I think they are reasonable powers to give to him. However, such powers, in the main, whether as detailed as this or not, have been vested in the Minister for Defence away back from 1923 and I have never heard of a case where they were abused.
I would not like to be taken as suggesting that the power was abused. I may have misunderstood the Minister's last remark, but if he indicated that he was not aware of any cases where pension claims were withheld until such time as it was ascertained whether there was money due, I would like to assure him that he is mistaken.
I did not say that— or, at least, I did not mean to say that, as I am aware of such cases myself.
I take it that the Minister is aware that it is the common practice of the Department of Defence to withhold—not for a protracted period, but for a month, six weeks or two months—pension payments, pending what they call a clearance from the income-tax people.
Yes, and from the Department of Defence. The income-tax one is laid down in other law.
I know that is controlled by other legislation. My suggestion is that the power to withhold should be for a limited period.
We will see if it is abused. If it is, we will deal with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I would ask at this stage that amendment No. 3 be taken.
All the amendments are out of order and have been so ruled. Therefore, they do not arise. An amendment ruled out of order is not in the possession of the House.
Is it not in the jurisdiction of the Minister to amend it?
The Deputy may ask the Minister to do something, but may not move anything.
I would ask the Minister to add to Section 7 at this stage a clause giving him the necessary authority, in the case of any person in respect of whom the board of assessors report that he had rendered military service in Oglaigh na hÉireann, to award to that person a gratuity for each year of service. I believe that would not cost a terrible lot and that it would be a good thing. I know hundreds of former members of Oglaigh na hÉireann who would be satisfied with an extension of that kind.
There will be border-line cases, of men who gave good service for many years to the State and who helped in no small way to establish its independence. I am sure that no person in receipt of a pension would dare to claim that it was he, or all the pensioners taken together, who secured the independence of the country. Were it not for the help of many of these men who have not qualified, I feel sure that our fight with Britain would have been prolonged and might not have been so successful. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister to accept my suggestion. I believe I speak with good knowledge of many of my former comrades who have been disappointed in the matter of pensions, when I say that acceptance would end the suffering and that we would hear no more about pensions.
The Deputy read out his rejected amendment, which is not permissible. The Minister might move such amendments, but a Deputy may not. No amendment ruled out of order may be read here for any purpose.
Section 7 deals with a completely different point, with the question of giving power to the Minister to restore a forfeited pension. I think everybody will agree that at some point, at some date, some Minister should have power to restore forfeited pensions. That is all as regards Section 7.
With regard to the suggestion that has been made by Deputy Davern, that would introduce a completely new principle that is not running through either the Act of 1924 or the Act of 1934. It is not a principle that, even if it were introduced by a Minister, would be properly admissible by way of an amending Bill to the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act, or it should not be.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
In spite of the Minister's opinion in respect of my attitude on this Bill, I want to congratulate him on bringing in this particular section. The Bill is divided into parts and Parts II and III are duplications so that what we say in respect to one part practically applies to the other. I am glad to be in a position to congratulate the Minister on this section.
I mentioned this matter to the Minister on the occasion of the Estimate. I quoted a case which was only one of a number of similar cases. I do not want again to quote the case. It was a case of a very minor assault. It was merely a domestic squabble. The unfortunate pair who squabbled lost a pension of some value, I think it was about £30. The result was that, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the husband, there was a fine of a colossal amount. The only criticism I have to make is that it is a pity that the Minister is limited to the date on which he can restore that pension. The fine was an abnormal fine and the judge who passed the sentence did not for a moment believe that, in addition to the sentence, he was inflicting that fine. This section limits the Minister to the operative date again and I think that is a pity. I hope the Minister will look into the matter rather quickly because in some cases it would be urgent. I am sure that when he is operating this particular section he will take into consideration the type of case with which he is dealing. There will be certain cases where he and the Minister for Finance may not desire to restore the pension at all but there will be others where, if it were possible to go back and to pay the pension over a period of some years, it would be doing only the smallest possible amount of justice. However, limited as it is, I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this particular section into the Bill.
I also welcome this section. I know of a few cases that were harshly treated in the forfeiture of their pensions. While the Minister has been good enough to introduce this section, he should, in the light of information in regard to the various cases and where the crime was not too great, consider such cases sympathetically and go back further than the date stated in the section. I would ask the Minister to consider that point because there are cases that I have in mind which deserve sympathetic consideration.
Did you ever hear that it is a mistake to spur a willing horse?
Question agreed to.
Sections 9 to 14, inclusive, and Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Perhaps, if there is no objection, we might take it now.
I have not any personal objection, but I cannot say what the members of my Party feel about it.
The only thing is that there was one big point at issue. That was decided. Seeing that the pensions date from the date of the passing of the Bill, every week we delay denies them a week's pension.
Then I will agree.
The operative date was fixed.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Before we go on to the next item, with which the Minister for Defence will also be dealing, I feel there ought to be a short adjournment. I take it the House could agree to that. We have been here since 3 o'clock. It is now 6.40 p.m. I am prepared to stay here if I have to, but I would like that we should have some break, and I think the same would apply to the Minister.
As far as the Minister is concerned he is built in this way, that when he is in trouble he would rather stay there until it is all over than get it in instalments.
The Minister will get away at some stage, but I will have to remain for the next business.
Is there anything of very great importance with regard to the next Bill? The next Bill is merely legalising what we did last summer.
Would the Minister not deal with his other Bill now?
The Minister is quite willing to go ahead with his other Bill.
I am making a suggestion that we should have an adjournment for an hour.
It is beaten, Deputy. It would require the consent of the House.