I have very few points to raise in connection with this group of Estimates, mainly for the reason that this particular Estimate has been very fully discussed for the last couple of weeks and on reading through the debates I saw that practically every point had been covered. My real purpose in rising is to lend my voice in support of certain requests that had been made to the Minister. My experience as Minister for Defence, particularly in regard to the Old I.R.A., was that there was general sympathy all round with regard to their claims but that there was no such thing as any general agreement as to how these claims should be met. There were within the Old I.R.A. so many different organisations making different demands that it was extremely difficult to know which should get priority. I received deputations from representatives of the Easter Week men requesting and pressing very hard for a special pension at a special minimum rate for those who had participated in the events of Easter Week. I had very large and numerous representations from those representing active service units claiming—and it is beyond dispute— that they were whole-time men, that they were in the position that they could not hold any job or occupation, that they had got to be within call at any time of the day or night, that they received a small payment so as to maintain them in that position, that they were in fact the first regular Army in this country, that they had got in the past verbal assurances that they would be specially looked after if the people of this country got command of their own affairs. These assurances were verbal and the people who had given the assurances are long since dead.
Then we had deputations also with regard to people who had been either late or had been turned down in their applications for pensions, where they themselves believed, and neighbours, comrades and a number of others believed, that their cases were such that they should have been awarded pensions. Another body was interested in the question of removing or abolishing the abatement clauses which reduced the pension of an I.R.A. man because of his salary coming from any public funds.
My opinion was that the first step necessary was to ensure that everyone entitled to a pension would get it and, after that, to see what legislation was most suitable to do the greatest justice to the greater number. The first step was to let all people who had genuine service through the gate so as to be eligible for pension and to be there for consideration. We did that some time ago. My job was not made very easy at that time. I do not want to be harping back or barking back but I was generally denounced because I had not made these pensions retrospective to 1934 or 1924. If I had attempted to do it, I certainly would not have got sanction for that particular Bill but there was scarcely a Deputy opposite who joined in that debate who did not accuse me of cheating these Old I.R.A. men. I do not think these denunciations were sincere. If they were sincere, we would have had an amending Bill long ago to make that Act of mine retrospective. We shall never have such an Act. My main purpose was to ensure that whoever was entitled to a pension would get it and I had to go whatever road appeared to be the most likely road to achieve that purpose.
There were many people who doubted at that time whether there was some case for re-establishing the Pensions Board. I had a volume of evidence, information and that kind of thing, indicating that there were quite a considerable number of genuine cases of applicants who, for one reason or another, had not got their pensions and that the board had got to be reformed to give these people a chance of bare justice. I think it is clear to everyone to-day that there was a very considerable number of such cases and that they are getting justice to-day. The figures alone quoted by the Minister demonstrate that of the cases so far heard and finally dealt with, practically half or more of the applicants have received an award. I know that the apparently more genuine cases were brought to the surface, so to speak, and dealt with first. The figures I have quoted show that there is urgent need for reforming that board. Deputy MacCarthy pointed out that there are areas where everyone living in the areas knows that A, B or C gave genuine service and yet has not been awarded a pension.
The position now is that everybody entitled to a pension is in a position to get it and the next question, then, for consideration is as to whether or not the pensions are adequate. These pensions were awarded very many years ago when money was money and when the recipients, even the oldest of them at the time, were quite young men. There was strong objection to giving a pension of any size, great or small, to comparatively young men. Things have changed since then and money has lost its value. The youngest now entitled to an I.R.A. pension is a doddering old man. If an increase is given the bill would certainly not be a formidable one and it would be a rapidly diminishing bill.
The only State pensioner who has received no increase in his pension commensurate with the rise in the cost of living is the Old I.R.A. pensioner. Every other group has been dealt with. One reason for that was that only one thing could be done at a time. All the other groups have been dealt with and we have now reached the next stage. The question as to how best to approach this matter is one for the Minister and his Department. Seeing that these pensions run down as low as £7, £8 or £9 a year, I do not think that any increase granted could be reckoned up as a matter that touches in any way on the cost of living. That would be a rather ridiculous argument. Probably some kind of special scheme will have to be devised such as had to be devised in the case of disability and wound pension increases. In that respect the automatic increases granted in wages and salaries could not be made applicable because the bigger percentage increase was given to those on the lower scales. If that were to apply in the case of pensions for wounds and disability it would mean that the biggest percentage increases would be given to those with the most minor ailments and the least increases would be given to those totally disabled.
In the light of the case that has been urged on the Minister by both sides of the House as to the necessity for a general review of I.R.A. pension rates, I think the whole matter will have to be reviewed from the point of view of a very much modified scheme, if not an entirely new scheme. There are special bodies within the main group, such as active service people and the Easter Week people. In the first Act a special arrangement was made in relation to the Easter Week people both in relation to rank and duration.
In regard to the question of abatement, I have never been able to satisfy myself as to the justice of abatement in relation to any pension. I have studied the matter. I have heard the case made for abatement generally. When it is all boiled down, it amounts to the fact that it is a British precedent. The British adopted it generally in relation to pensions and we have inherited the trend. I have never succeeded in seeing the justice of that.
Leaving aside the I.R.A. pensioners, let us consider the position of the civil servant or Army pensioner. If a civil servant retires on pension and subsequently is re-employed by the State because of specialised knowledge, his pension is abated during his re-employment. If, on the other hand, an outsider is appointed, he has to make no sacrifice. He is paid the full rate attaching to the post and, if he is drawing a pension from some outside body, his pension does not suffer.
The anomalies are even greater in relation to I.R.A. pensions. Absurdities too numerous to mention occur to the minds of all of us. There may be two brothers with equal service and equal pensions in the Old I.R.A. One brother fortunate enough to earn £20,000 a year gets his full pension. The other brother continues to serve the State as a State employee. He gets a salary of some hundreds a year and his pension is stopped. With the development of semi-State and State-controlled companies the position becomes even more paradoxical. We have two airports here. If a man gets employment in one airport his pension is abated. If he gets employment in the other airport there is no abatement because there is some distinction in the financing of the two bodies. We have the Electricity Supply Board. We have Bord na Móna. We have the Sugar Beet Company and a number of other bodies of that kind set up by the State, some of them carried on by the credit of the State and others carried on by means of State grants or subsidies. Córas Iompair Éireann is maintained to a great extent by State subsidy annually. In some of these bodies there is abatement of pension. In others there is not. The position is very puzzling. It is a pity that so many bites were made in the past of such a very small cherry. Abatement was introduced in the beginning. There was a Bill to abate the abatement. Abatement is an absurdity. I believe it is an injustice and I am convinced that it would not stand up to any searching investigation. The one thing that is behind it is precedent, long-established practice. With regard to the Old I.R.A. pensions, in particular, I think they should be reconsidered.
I listened to Deputy Brennan on the question of extending the dates for medals. I have no doubt that he has many cases in mind of men who let the last date pass, now regret it and cannot get the medal or the allowance. I sympathise with the Minister if he was a bit impatient on that particular front because the last date for applying for medals, and other things, was extended nine or ten times, and every time it was extended was to be the last. There was a most energetic publicity drive so as to ensure that never again would there be a claim for a further date extension. Radio Éireann, the Post Office, labour exchanges, Deputies in Dáil Éireann, public bodies, daily newspapers, provincial newspapers and every possible medium for contacting people was used energetically and exhaustively, and yet we are told that there are a great number still shut out. In spite of all that people will not sit up and put in a claim, even though the date was extended year after year for a great number of years. In view of that it is very difficult to get hot under the collar about it. If, however, the case made by Deputy Brennan has universal or general application, then I think it would be worth while reopening the date for a very short period and be done with it. Have it reopened for, say, a period of three months. Let all concentrate on dragging in, if necessary by the hair of the head, anyone who has a claim within these three months, and then forget about it. While making that suggestion I would not blame any Minister if he turned it down because of the fact that this thing has been reopened so many times. It is hard to expect any Minister to reopen it again.
It is difficult, really, to discuss, with brevity, these particular pensions: Defence Force pensions, Army pensions, I.R.A. pensions, would pensions, disability pensions, and the Amendment (Pensions) Act, all at the one time. I think it is incredible the number of Acts we have for one of the smallest armies in the world. We have an Army of tiny numbers, and yet, if my memory serves me correctly, there are, I think, 16 different Bills dealing with pensions and with different amendments of one kind or another. The number of Bills is indicative of the niggardliness and the lack of generosity with which this subject was approached by the Department of Finance. The battle to get anything through the Department of Finance for such objects as we are discussing is such that any Minister, when he comes to the point of getting half a loaf, will grab it, and hope to get the other half by instalments as the years pass. That means that there are three, four or five Acts where one would suffice if the thing were faced up to in a generous spirit when propositions were made.
That has been my experience in Government and in Opposition. That was my sad and weary experience during many years in the Army. There is a generation of soldiers paying for that whose names are never mentioned nowadays—stricken, forgotten and disabled cases that are still alive where the disability arose between 1924 and 1939 and was not caused by a wound. With regard to disabilities, other than wounds, over 80 per cent. are covered up to 1924. They are covered again for 1939, for the duration of the emergency. But, in between these periods, you have your tuberculosis cases, your mental cases, your chronically crippled cases with rheumatoid arthritis, with no pension scheme whatsoever for them. They are overlooked and forgotten.
When the first Act was there, we could not get people to make it a lasting Act. It stopped on the 1st October, 1924, and it took the best part of 20 years to get another Act to cover disabilities other than wounds. When the other Act came, it could not be thrown back to cover the particular cases I have referred to. I do not know the number of them. It was fairly considerable at one time. I do not know how many have since died. Probably a considerable number but, when discussing pensions of various kinds—Army pensions, Old I.R.A. pensions, wound and disability pensions— let us not forget that there is a generation of Irish soldiers, over a period of 15 years who, if they acquired any disability that was attributable to and aggravated by service, and are totally and completely disabled at the present moment, that there is no Act and no machinery for giving anything whatsoever to them. That is a group which should be considered if there is amending legislation. As I have said, I cannot say what the number is. I do not believe it would be very great. I should like, at any rate, that at least we would recollect the fact that they are there and unattended to. I would like to have that fact kept before the minds of the Minister and of Deputies.