Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 57—Army Pensions (Resumed).

Captain Cowan

When I moved to report progress, I was dealing with the general question of the amounts paid as pensions to members of the Old I.R.A. and to the widows of members of the Old I.R.A. I had made the point that in relation to 1923, when these pensions were originally fixed, the same amounts paid now, in view of the increased cost of living in the meantime, are entirely inadequate. I instanced certain persons specifically.

I mentioned the case of the widow's pension of 17/6 a week fixed by the 1923 Act and not altered since. There are quite a number of anomalies and quite a number of matters to be rectified. We have the extraordinary position in regard to a widow of a man who was wounded and died of wounds after 1924 and prior to 1937 that no pension is paid in that case. That is in the case of a person who was married after 1924 and prior to 1937. A gratuity of £112 10s. is payable in that case but if the wounded Old I.R.A. man married since 1937 no pension at all is payable to his wife when he dies. That is certainly unfair because a husband or a father with a disability which entitles him to a pension cannot make provision by way of insurance for his family. Obviously, being in receipt of such a disability pension, no insurance company would take him. If they did insure him they would only do so at a premium he could not afford. In the circumstances a very grave hardship is caused to the widows and families of those Old I.R.A. men who are in receipt of wound pensions and who have married subsequent to 1937.

Even where a marriage allowance is payable, when the percentage of disability increases there is no increase in the marriage allowance. I put it to the Minister—I am sure that in this matter I will have the entire support of the House—that there is a good case for removing the anomalies and the causes of grievance in regard to these matters.

Then there is the case of a person with a disability aggravated by service and where, as a result, a person loses a limb. There is no provision whereby an artificial limb can be provided for that person. I think that is something that ought to be remedied. If a person loses a limb as a result of a disability aggravated by service, an artificial limb should be provided for him by the State free of charge, and he should be maintained during the period he is learning to use the artificial limb.

There is a further cause of grievance in the case of those pensioners whose pension award is made final. Where the award is made final the recipient is not entitled to hospitalisation and the State will not contribute to the expenses of his hospitalisation. We all know that special hospitals and special hospital facilities are provided for men from this country who served in the British forces.

I think we owe that much at least to the members of the Old I.R.A. who are in receipt of pensions for wounds and disability. Even after their pension award is made final they should receive any necessary hospital treatment and hospitalisation free of charge and at the expense of the State.

Special hospitals or a special hospital in proper surroundings should be set aside wherein those veterans of the War of Independence could be treated and where they could have, during the period of their treatment, adequate recreation or rest rooms. They should have grounds or parks in which they could walk around to enjoy themselves as best they could during the period they were in hospital. I think every member of the House, and every member of the public, would support the Minister if he were to provide hospitals for the treatment of those men who served the State in their younger days without counting the cost.

Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Vivion de Valera have asked the Minister to put an end to the abatement that is made in respect of military service pensions. Where a person served in the Old I.R.A. and is in receipt of a military service pension, his pension is abated, or reduced, if he should happen to draw money from the State or from a local authority. We have instances of individuals who served in the I.R.A. and are in receipt of military service pensions working side by side with individuals who, at the same period, served in the British forces and are now in receipt of British pensions for that service. In the case of the man who served in the British forces, he receives his British pension in full without any deduction, whereas the man who served this State has a deduction made from his pension under the authority of this Dáil.

The amount received by the State under that abatement has been variously estimated. I understood the figure was something about £27,000. I endeavoured, by means of questions to the previous Minister for Finance, and the previous Minister for Defence, to ascertain precisely the amount involved, but apparently it was not readily obtainable. I was informed that it would be too difficult to ask to have a return prepared giving exactly the amount by which the State benefits as a result of this abatement. Deputy MacEoin yesterday put it at a figure not exceeding £35,000. Whether it is £27,000 or £35,000, a good case has been made to the Minister and the Government to have those abatements abolished. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be encouraged by the expressions of opinion that have been made from all sides of the House to have this abatement, which is in the nature of a nuisance, wiped out.

As regards the ordinary administration of it, there are complaints from men entitled to military service pensions that their pensions are held up because the local authorities by whom they are employed do not send proper returns to the Department of Defence in time in regard to their remuneration. As a result, payment of the pensions to which those men are entitled is held up until such time as the local authority thinks fit to send the information to the Minister's Department. There is that little bit of annoyance added to the general feeling in regard to the abatements. We must also understand that, although the abatement is administered by the section which deals with pensions in general, there must be some cost to the State to administer this particular section. Therefore, on the grounds that cost can be avoided, that it is an annoyance and that it is inequitable and unfair, the Minister would have good grounds for abolishing this abatement.

Another problem with which the members of the Old I.R.A. are faced at the moment is in connection with their service in Government Departments or with local authorities. Men who served in the I.R.A. between 1916 and 1921 or 1923—quite a number of them—obtained employment in the Civil Service or with local authorities. They find now, reaching as they are the age limit for retirement, that they are not entitled to the same Civil Service or local authority conditions as to pension as if they had served in the Civil Service or with a local authority, instead of in the I.R.A., during those years.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that not a matter for the Minister for Finance rather than the Minister for Defence?

Captain Cowan

It probably is. I just want to mention it as part of the case that I am asking the House and the Minister to deal with. I think I have just said sufficient, and would appeal to the Minister to consider that particular case. The Old I.R.A. have submitted memoranda to the Minister in which that point is dealt with. I would ask him to consider it with the Minister for Finance and the members of the Government sympathetically.

I and other Deputies have asked the Minister to consider also a very small section of men who served in the Casement Brigade. The surviving members of that brigade now hardly exceed 20. They feel they are entitled to special consideration and that their services in a difficult situation should be acknowledged by the State now. I know that the Minister has difficulties in regard to that particular section. They themselves appreciate the difficulty but they do feel that their service to Ireland in the Casement Brigade ought to be acknowledged and honoured by the State.

Deputy General MacEoin yesterday dealt with the Referee under the Military Service Pensions Acts and, as I gathered from him, he made the case that it was wrong in principle that a person who had decided a case should be, as it were, the appeal tribunal in regard to that case. Everyone would agree that in general the principle as stated by General McEoin is a sound and a fair principle. Like other members of the House I know the Referee appointed under the Military Service Pensions Acts. I know that the Referee is anxious to carry out the duties with absolute impartiality and with fairness and I am perfectly certain that he considers all the evidence that is put before him in a fair and impartial way. I am also perfectly sure that in looking into this question of what one might term appeal cases, he would be influenced by the new decisions of this Parliament in regard to the consideration of the factors that entitle a man to a military service pension.

However, there is undoubtedly a danger that persons who are disappointed, who have been turned down before and are turned down again, may say that they did not get a fair crack of the whip or that their case was not heard and considered fairly and impartially. It is undesirable that anyone should have that apprehension. It would be wrong that anyone should have that fear but there is danger that it will be there and perhaps the Minister might consider whether it would be possible to have a different Referee to deal with the new cases as distinct from the cases of appeal. For myself, I would have much preferred that there was some different machinery as the final court of appeal in regard to those cases. I certainly would have liked to see an appeal tribunal consisting of men who had rendered service at the very highest level during the Old I.R.A. days deciding those cases finally. I certainly would like to see, as I am sure the House would like to see, an appeal tribunal consisting of the Minister himself and, say, the Minister for Education, Deputy Moylan, and the former Minister for Defence, General MacEoin.

In England, dealing with British Army pensions, they have specifically laid it down in regulations that in determining pensions, whether a person is entitled to a pension or not, there must be a bias in favour of the applicant and that he must get the maximum pension he is entitled to; where there is a doubt as to whether he is entitled to that higher pension or lower pension, the doubt must always be resolved in favour of the pensioner. I believe that that is a very human, a very sensible and fair way of approaching it. That is why I say I would have liked to see a tribunal, such as I have mentioned, of men who would, knowing them as I do, in the ordinary way resolve the doubt always in favour of the applicant for a pension. It should be laid down by the Minister for the guidance of the Referee that that is the way this House and the Government and the people would wish these Acts to be administered. In England, too, they have a person who is known in a general way as "the soldier's friend". He is a person who makes a study of all these Pensions Acts, who understands them and understands how and in what way an applicant can benefit by the proper presentation of his case.

We ought to have here some person of that kind who would be experienced in these Acts and in their administration, who would be an adviser to every applicant and who would appear with him if he was so required to present the applicant's case in the best possible way to the Referee. It is our experience that the better a soldier was in the old days the less likely he is to pat himself on the back now. In investigating claims one finds hesitancy and shyness on the part of the applicant to put his case in the best way in his own interest and as a result of that many people have been treated unfairly. By the assistance of the sort of friend I mentioned we could and everybody else could be satisfied that an applicant's case was put in the very best way to the Pensions Board, and that he would not lose his right to a pension simply because his case was badly presented.

The old pensions code is a very difficult code to understand. I do not know how many people outside of those who are actually engaged in the investigations under the Acts understand the Acts. They are involved Acts from the way they came in—Acts, amendments, amendments, new Acts, new amendments. Perhaps, even at this stage it might be desirable if the Minister were to establish some sort of committee to examine all these Acts and see if they could not be simplified and made much easier to understand. What is really required is some committee to rationalise all these Pensions Acts and pensions legislation. I would recommend that to the Minister.

There is one final matter that I want to touch on. It was dealt with, in fact, very fully yesterday evening by Deputy Major Vivion de Valera—that is, the question of members of the Air Corps who lose their life on active duty. I would support Deputy Major de Valera in the strong case he made to the Minister for an examination of the position in regard to the Air Corps and in regard also to those officers and soldiers who are engaged in specially dangerous duties.

The whole country has been shocked by the revelations that have been made by different local authorities who have taken up what is well known now as the Captain Ryan case. As Deputies know, Captain Ryan was an officer of 36 years of age when he was killed on flying duty over a year ago. He was the third member of his family to give his life in the military service of the State. He left a widow and six young children and, under the Army Pensions Act, his widow is entitled to £90 a year and each of his children is entitled to £16 a year. The total pension that that family receives is £186 a year.

Obviously, that pension is entirely and grossly inadequate. No person in this country could seek to justify such a miserable pension for a family of seven persons. It is a wonderful tribute to that officer's widow that she is managing as she is to maintain herself and those six children on that miserable allowance.

The strange thing is that if, instead of being an Army officer, Captain Ryan had been a civil servant who was killed while flying in the course of his duty, his widow and children would receive something less than £600—£581 a year. But, because Captain Ryan was an Army officer, killed in the course of his duty, his widow and six children are entitled only to £186 a year.

The Minister has told us that it is intended to change that position at an early date. I want to put it to the Minister that it is no use making some small increases in a case such as this. Adequate provision must be made so that the widow and the children will be enabled to live in ordinary, reasonable conditions of comfort.

It should be made clear to the Department of Finance that the amendment that is proposed to regulations must be a substantial amendment and must cover in retrospect the particular case of Captain Ryan's widow and the widows of other officers and soldiers who lost their lives in somewhat similar circumstances.

Deputy Major de Valera dealt last night with the case that is made on behalf of the Department of Defence that, because an officer receives flying pay of 5/- a day, he ought to make provision by way of insurance for his wife and children. That, of course, is not correct, as Deputy Major de Valera very clearly established, because the premiums that would be charged to cover the death of an Army officer belonging to the Air Corps, on duty, would be too high. Deputy Major de Valera dealt exhaustively with that particular point and there is no necessity for me to repeat it.

I would make the appeal which he made and which I am sure other Deputies will make, to the Minister, to be generous and fair in dealing with this particular case. We hope and trust that the provision made in this case will be a headline in fair, generous and just treatment for the dependents and relatives of Army personnel who lose their lives in the service of the State.

I will conclude by making the broad general appeal to the Minister to announce as early as he possibly can the decision of the Government to remove the grievances of which members of the Old I.R.A. complain and to bring all those pensions that were authorised in 1923 up to date so that they will reasonably help the recipients to meet the increase in the cost of living that has taken place since 1923.

In the ordinary way the discussion on this pensions Estimate should not take any time. I hope and trust that, as a result of the removal of the anomalies and grievances that have been referred to in this debate, it will be possible to dispose of future Estimates in a very short time. It depends now entirely on the Minister and the Government. In making the improvements sought they will be acting in accordance with the wishes of this House and in accordance with the wishes of the country.

Mr. Cosgrave

I join in the appeal that has been made to the Minister in connection with a variety of matters under Army pensions legislation. First of all, the members of the Defence Forces who have retired or who are about to retire have a grievance in regard to the delay in announcing their rate of retirement pensions. Officers, N.C.O.s and men have retired and they are not yet aware of the rate of retirement pension. That imposes a disability on them from two angles. A number of Army personnel who are about to retire inquire into the possibility of securing civilian employment and the type of position which they seek is to a considerable extent governed by the amount of the retirement pension.

If a man is due for retirement, and knows his pension will be at a particular rate, he may seek a position at a certain wage or salary but if he is due for retirement at a low rate of pension and has dependents it will be necessary for him to seek a position which will enable him to earn a higher remuneration. Consequently I think that there is no justification whatever for the excessive delay in dealing with this matter. I need not reiterate the case that has been put before the Minister or the arguments that have been used. It is sufficient to say that in the case of civil servants and other public servants, they are in a position to know for some time prior to retirement what the rate of pension will be on the basis of a known period of service. In the case of Army personnel, there has been this delay which has existed now for quite a considerable period and Deputies from all sides have been approached to urge that a decision would be arrived at without any further delay.

A number of Deputies have over the years made representations concerning the ending of the abatement of military service pensions in respect to Old I.R.A. personnel. Whatever justification there may have been for such an abatement in the initial stages, I think that, having regard to the increase in the cost of living since the pensions were first granted, a strong case can now be made for the discontinuance of this abatement. It is doubtful indeed if there was ever any justification for it. The pensions were awarded in respect of service given at a particular time. Comparisons are sometimes made between two individuals serving in a particular position, one of whom is in receipt of a military service pension from the home Government, and another who has a pension from the British Government for service in the British forces or in some department of the British services.

The British pensioner is allowed to retain the full amount of his salary and emoluments without abatement while the person in receipt of an Irish military service pension is subject to abatement. Seeing that the pensions were awarded for services rendered in a particular capacity, I think the pension should be paid in full without any abatement. The amount involved is comparatively small. Although it is not possible to estimate accurately what the figure is, it is obvious that it must be in the region of £30,000 or £40,000. The loss entailed to the Exchequer, if pensions were paid without abatement, would be trivial in comparison to the relative loss which abatement involves for the individuals concerned and the satisfaction which full payment would afford them. The fact that these payments are abated is in itself an irritation to the recipient.

The case that is being made on behalf of officers and men who receive injuries or who are killed in the course of duty, particularly the case of the late Captain Ryan referred to by Deputy Cowan, is one which must appeal to the sympathy of the Minister and his advisers. The rates of pension fixed for Air Corps personnel bear no relation whatever to present living conditions. Nobody can contend for a moment that the present rate of pension in any way meets the cost of living or the responsibilities of the widows and families of personnel killed on service. The suggestion has been made that because an increase of pay, known as flying pay, is paid to personnel of the Air Corps, that should in some way enable an officer or a member of the rank and file to insure while on service. Deputies are aware that the insurance premiums for civilian flying personnel are extremely high—so high that it has been a problem for flying companies as well as the personnel concerned. The premiums demanded for members of the Air Corps or members of any active service unit in any army are still higher, because the risks involved are much greater. To suggest that these persons could insure by utilising the amount of flying pay, which is paid as part compensation for the risks involved, is to refuse to face up to the realities of the situation. Not merely should personnel of the Air Corps or widows and families of deceased personnel of the Air Corps receive these pensions but dependents of officers and men in the Army who are killed in the course of duty should receive proper and fair treatment from the State.

Our Army may be different from other armies with which comparisons are likely to be made at the moment. Units of the British Army from time to time are on active service. At present, and for quite a considerable time now, no section of our Army has been on active service, but members of the flying corps and officers and men engaged in operations such as those which were proceeding when the explosion took place in Glen Imaal, are involved in very risky operations, operations comparable to active service, operations which sometimes result in the same degree of suffering and hardship to dependents of these personnel as active service operations. The Minister and the Government should seriously consider this matter. While I appreciate that the Minister has promised amending legislation, the delay involved, particularly as the amount involved is not considerable, cannot be justified. The matter has been under consideration for a considerable time and a decision should be reached.

The fact that a circular has been issued to Deputies, certainly Deputies who served in the Defence Forces, calling attention to the plight of the widow and children of the late Captain Ryan has focussed public attention on the matter. It is particularly tragic that the family concerned suffered an earlier bereavement arising out of service to the State. There is general agreement not only in this House but outside the House, that immediate action should be taken to remedy the serious disabilities under which dependents of army personnel killed or seriously injured while on duty are at present labouring.

Deputies have referred to the fact that there is dissatisfaction as to the manner in which the Referee in the Military Service Board is hearing appeals. I urge the Minister to consider the position which has arisen. I have no doubt that the Referee, in common with other Referees, is anxious to carry out his duties impartially and in a fair manner, but a number of individuals who made applications for pensions under the earlier Acts and who were turned down, feel that when they make a fresh application and it is heard by the same Referee in some way or other they are not getting a fair hearing. It is true that the legislation has been altered and that the Referee is bound to take into account matters which he was not entitled to consider under the earlier legislation. But it is impossible to convince an applicant who presented his case under the earlier legislation and had it considered and rejected and who represents his case and has it considered and rejected that he is getting a fair hearing. He feels a sense of grievance no matter how fairly or fully his case is considered.

I know of cases where applicants have had additional evidence, and certainly in one case the additional evidence was not called for. In these circumstances the applicant had a definite grievance and the Minister should favourably consider having a different Referee for appeals from the Referee who heard the original case. I have no doubt that everyone will agree that a person considering an appeal from an earlier decision made by himself is bound to be influenced by the factors which operated in his mind in arriving at the earlier decision, no matter how legislation may be framed. These matters are bound to affect the operation of the individual's mind in arriving at a decision, and whether they do or not, most applicants feel they are not getting a proper hearing when they see the same Referee hearing the case. I, therefore, urge that the Minister should consider the suggestions made to provide a different Referee for appeal cases from the Referee hearing the original applications.

The Minister has heard from all sides of the House appeals to give an early indication of the Government's decision on military service pensions. Deputies on all sides agree that there should be an early decision in this matter. The amount involved in relation to the total expenditure for military service pensions or the total expenditure on the Army is comparatively small, but the suffering imposed by the delay in arriving at a decision is great for the individuals concerned. The House would welcome and readily assent to any proposals introduced to remedy these grievances. The grievances are confined to a small section of the community who rendered distinguished and valuable service in particularly difficult times, and who are entitled to recognition in the only way in which the State can afford adequate recognition for the service rendered. The Minister should, therefore, consider this as a matter of urgency and should request the Government as a matter of urgency to introduce whatever legislation is necessary to remedy the various grievances in respect of Old I.R.A. pensioners and officers and men of the Army who have retired, with particular attention to the cases of personnel killed or injured while on duty and to the other matters in connection with the administration of the Military Service Pensions Board.

Mr. McGrath

It is admitted that every class of pensioner and, in fact, almost every class of person in the country have got increases in pensions or pay during the last four years except the Old I.R.A. pensioners. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Finance admitted that a few days ago. I am anxious to deal with the people who are drawing what is known as special allowances, people incapable of self-support and who have no means of subsistence. When in 1946 the Government had an Act passed giving pensions to those people a considerable amount of happiness was brought to many people because it gave them some hope for the future. Certain classes of men who had rendered good service to the country and who had not qualified for either a service pension or a disability pension, found when they were no longer able to support themselves that the Government were prepared to help them to do so. At that time individuals were awarded a special allowance at the rate of £77 10s. per annum, with £20 for a wife and £10 or £12 for each child. That was a pretty reasonable amount in 1946, but I am sure that nobody will agree that it is sufficient with the present cost of living. Appeals were made during the previous Government's régime to increase this. Appeals are being made to the present Government. Nothing has happened but in view of the statement made by the Minister for Finance the other day I believe we have good grounds for hope.

Progress reported.