asked the Minister for Defence if he will state the number of appeals rejected by the Referee in respect of military service pensions in the months of November and December, 1951, January and February, 1952.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Military Service Pension.
The number of appeals rejected by the Referee and Advisory Committee under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1934 and 1949, were as follows for the months mentioned:—
|
November, 1951 |
38 |
|
December, 1951 |
17 |
|
January, 1952 |
95 |
|
February, 1952 (to 22nd incl.) |
69 |
|
TOTAL |
219 |
asked the Minister for Defence if he will publish the rules under which the Referee defines active service under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924, 1934 and 1949, if he is aware that applicants find it difficult to make their case in support of their claims owing to the absence of the rules and if he would consider referring the matter to the Rules Committee of the Courts of Justice to draft a set of rules that would be equitable.
I am not aware that applicants experience any difficulty in presenting their cases owing to the absence of published rules defining active service for the purposes of the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924, 1934 or 1949. The interpretation of the term "active service" is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Board of Assessors constituted under the Act of 1924 or the Referee appointed under the Act of 1934, as the case may be. I do not propose to ask the Rules Committee of the Courts of Justice to draft a set of rules as suggested.
Is it not quite obvious, when the rejections in the month of November were 38, December 17, January 95 and February of this year 69, that there are as many sets of rules as there have been Referees, that each Referee has a set of rules defining active service and that no applicant is aware of what these rules are? In view of the fact that every applicant has the difficulty which the Minister I am sure is aware of—and if he is not aware of it his staff is— will he not agree that the set of rules which the Referee has should be available to the applicant to enable him to make his claim?
The decision in respect of what is, or what is not, active service is given by the Referee in question and not by me or anybody else.
Is the Minister not aware that the Referee decided active service in the case of a person who was a member of the Executive of Oglaigh na hÉireann; that the High Court gave a different decision and the person qualified? In the case of an applicant from Galway for a 1916 Certificate the Referee gave one decision and the High Court gave a different decision under which the applicant qualified. Therefore, you had the Referree deciding what constitutes active service. Every person should be equal before the law and we should not have the position that active service before one Referee means this and before another Referee means that so that there are different decisions.
The Deputy is not, I hope, suggesting that one Referee is acting dishonestly as against the other.
The Deputy is suggesting that one Referee honestly decided in 1934 what constituted active service. The next year another Referee decided something else constituted active service.
What do you want me to do about it?
I want the Minister and the Government to draw up a set of rules stipulating that everybody will be equal before the law so that everybody will know what has to be proved when coming forward with a claim.
The obvious answer to that, and I have to give it, is that the Deputy was a member of the Government which drew up the 1949 Act. What did the Deputy, who was then a Minister, himself do about it? Did he voice his opinions on that matter in council? He was Minister for Defence for a short period. I would like to know what steps he took to deal with the situation that is causing him so much concern now.
On a matter of personal explanation. I do not know if the Minister has the right to ask me that question, but he has done so. If you give me permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night I will tell the Minister what I did do, though I believe that is not the right procedure. I am looking for information. The fact of the matter is I did ask the Referee to publish a set of rules. The Referee asked me for time to see the Act in operation before any publication was made. I suggest the time has now come when the Minister should take up where I left off and publish a set of rules.
If I have as much to do as the Deputy did then I will have nothing to do.