Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1953

Vol. 136 No. 1

Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

The explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill will have given Deputies a picture of the matters to which the Bill relates. It may, however, be helpful if I speak about the various provisions in a more detailed manner than it was possible to deal with them in the memorandum.

The Government have accepted the proposition that the rates of military service pensions laid down in the Acts of 1924 and 1934 should be increased in the light of the increases granted in the case of other State pensions. The increases provided in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950, have been taken as the standard, since they apply to other bodies of State pensioners, and, on that basis, a table of increases has been prescribed in Section 2 of the Bill. Generally speaking, the increases will operate as from the 1st January, 1953.

It is provided in the Act of 1924 that, where a member of the permanent force holds a certificate of military service, no pension will be paid to him until he has left the permanent force. The pension is then calculated on the substantive rank at that particular time or on the 1st February, 1924, whichever of those ranks is the higher. Because, however, of the proposed abolition of abatement of military service pensions by reference to remuneration from public funds, it seems only fair that the persons concerned— there are less than 100 of them—should have the opportunity of taking their pensions now if they desire to do so, and Section 3 provides accordingly. It may be that some of them would prefer to wait until they have left the Army; an officer, for instance, who felt that he would be likely to receive further promotion and so, on retirement, have a higher military service pension, might regard it as being to his advantage to wait. If there are such cases, I have no desire to deprive them of the rights they possess under the Act of 1924. Where any person concerned wishes to take his pension before leaving the Army, he may have it as from a date not earlier that the 1st January, 1953, and it will be calculated on his substantive rank as on the date of commencement of the pension. He will then have to exercise the option within three months after the passing of the Bill or the date on which he is awarded the certificate of military service, whichever is the later. He cannot exercise it subsequently, andhaving exercised it, he cannot subsequently alter it.

Section 4 of the Bill has been included in an effort to meet a late request on the part of the Old I.R.A. associations. It appears that, under the Acts of 1924 and 1934, it was open to a person employed in the public service at the time when he was rendering military service within the meaning of the Acts to choose to surrender his military service pension and to have the period covered by that pension included for the purpose of superannuation pension and allowances. The method of calculation was an extremely complicated one and I do not intend to trouble the House with it now. I understand that the vast majority of the people concerned opted to retain their military service pensions and that only 14 or 15 persons found it more advantageous to surrender their military service pension. The request to me was that the provisions I have mentioned should be repealed so that it would be possible to count the periods in question for the purposes of both military service pension and civil pension. I am sorry that I have found myself unable to meet that request in full. I am, however, able to do something which, I hope, may be regarded as a compromise. It is possible, I am told, now that the military service pensions are being increased and abatement removed, that some of those who gave up their military service pensions may find that, taking the long view, it would have been better for them not to exercise the option they did. Accordingly, I propose to give them the opportunity of reconsidering their position. This section will enable them to do so, and again each person concerned will have to take the decision for himself.

If anybody changes his option, he will have to do so from the time of his original option. He will, by doing so, be in debt to the State as on a current date, because the original exercise of the option meant that he got more by taking an enhanced superannuation than he would have got by taking his military service pension and lower superannuation. In other words, he profited by making the original optionand will, therefore, have something to refund by going into reverse, even though the reversal of the option will mean an eventual financial advantage. Actually, I do not think there is much in it. It may be, in fact, that nobody will wish to change his option. As I have said, I have merely made it possible in response to the request of the Old I.R.A. associations.

I now come to what I might describe as a hardy annual. For years, successive Ministers for Defence have been extending the latest dates of application for military service certificates, and in the Act of 1949 people were given up to the 7th June, 1951, to petition for the re-examination of rejected applications made under the Acts of 1924 and 1934. Nevertheless, late applications and petitions continue to be received, although it is difficult to understand why that should be so after all the opportunities given over the years. I am now providing by Section 5 of this Bill for a further extension for petitions, the period being six months from the passage of the Bill. I also intend to make regulations providing for a similar extension of time for receiving applications for service certificates from persons who had not applied before the expiration of the previous time limit, that is, the 7th June, 1952. I think that the House will agree that, after 28 years in the case of one Act and 18 in the case of the other, it is about time that everybody who feels he is entitled to a certificate should now set about applying for it.

Section 6 of the Bill will get rid of a long-standing grievance—the abatement of military service pensions because of the payment of remuneration, pensions or allowances out of public funds or by a local authority. The first step in the mitigation of this grievance was taken in the No. 2 Act of 1945, and the Government have now decided to abolish abatement entirely. I understand that almost 1,800 persons will benefit by this course and I am glad that it has been found possible to accede to the many representations made by all parties and by so many groups. It follows from the abolition of abatement under the Military Service Pensions Acts themselves thatmilitary service pensions should no longer continue to abate or be abated by pensions payable under other Acts, and Section 6 also makes the necessary provision in this connection.

I have, therefore, tried to meet the requests that have been made from time to time for the amendment of the Military Service Pensions Acts. Abatement is being abolished; pensions are being increased; and I have endeavoured, as I said, to compromise to the fullest possible extent on the request that the same periods of time should count for military service and superannuation.

There is another feature which I also feel I should mention and which, I think, is not always sufficiently appreciated. A military service pensioner who finds himself incapacitated through age or infirmity is no longer entirely dependent on his pension. Provided that his means are below the appropriate annual sum he is eligible for a special allowance, and these allowances, it must be agreed, have certainly helped to improve the lot of persons who gave service to the State and who have fallen upon hard times.

This is a short Bill. Nevertheless, I believe it will remove a number of the outstanding grievances which have been expressed on behalf of the Old I.R.A., and I feel that the House will appreciate the position regarding the efforts which are now being made to deal with these claims. Within the next couple of weeks, I hope to introduce an Army Pensions Bill. That Bill will, among other things, provide for certain increases in wound, disability and other pensions and allowances payable under the Army Pensions Acts. It will also extend the date of application for medals, thus rendering a large additional number of persons eligible to qualify for special allowances and will, in addition, effect certain improvements in the rates of special allowances.

The cost of the provisions contained in these two Bills is estimated to amount to about £400,000 a year. Deputies will, I feel sure, agree that this is a generous sum to provide towards the removal of the grievancesso often referred to in this House. It is a substantial amount, which may have to be added to in view of the possible effects of the extension of the date for petitions and new applications under the present Bill, as well as the further proposed extension of the date for medal applications. As the sum which I have mentioned, together with the arrears, will have to be found in the forthcoming financial year, Deputies will, no doubt, agree that the taxpayer, the main source of our revenue, should not be further strained in this regard.

Mr. S. Collins

I think we have reached the stage where we can view with dispassionate objectivity the purpose which these Bills serve. While the Minister makes the case that a substantial sum of money has to be found to deal with the effect of this Bill and another Bill which he intends to bring before the House, I think he is still missing, in the very structure and fabric of these amending Bills, the basic principle that most of us now accept as regards pensions for people who have given service to the State. Fortunately, we have, in the main, arrived at unanimity as regards our anxiety to give decent recognition to all classes of people who served and suffered in any way to the detriment of their health while in the service of the State.

Parts of this Bill commend themselves very earnestly to the House but I say that the Bill fails in its real objective. I am not making that observation in a spirit of political criticism. I am making it with a deep feeling of regret. I object to the constant badinage around this House of the conditions and sufferings of some of the people who have served this State. I was hoping that this new measure might, once and for all, serve as a medium for finishing this constant round-about barrage from one side of the House to the other claiming substantial credit for doing things that for too long were left undone.

My criticism of this Bill will not be by way of any suggestion of opposing it. I desire to suggest earnestly to theMinister that we might get together on the Committee Stage of this Bill, as we did on another Bill in relation to his Department, in an endeavour to get a kind of unanimity of decision in the House to improve the Bill and bring it to what we might describe as the optimum standard that we can reach to meet the demands of these people.

There is one glaring, outstanding and howling injustice in this Bill and nobody is more aware of it than the Minister himself: it is that pensions in a certain range are limited to an increase of 50 per cent. The very Act from which the Minister is quoting, and from which he is taking the line of increase, has no pensioner as lowly remunerated by way of pension as are some of the men who gave service to this State. It is not my purpose to criticise what might have been the work of the referee or what justification there may be for the beggarly awards that were made to some people who were given certificates of service in the interests of this country from 1916 onwards. I think the Minister is more than reasonable when dealing with problems in relation to his former comrades and former colleagues, but there can be no justification in the mind of any reasonable man for a Pensions Bill that will limit the increase of pension of men drawing as little as £8, £10, £12, and £14 a year to £5, £6, £7 or £8 a year while the same Bill will provide very substantial—and properly substantial—increases for people drawing pensions in much higher groups.

In all earnestness I suggest to the Minister that he might use this machinery which he is now introducing to put a minimum level on any pension, irrespective of the certificate award. There is little satisfaction even in a 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. increase in pension for the man who has £8, £10, £12, £14, £20 or £30 a year. I feel, and I am sure that the members of this House will agree with me if they view this matter in a dispassionate way, that the people in the very small pension groups are those towards whom our greatest effort should first be directed. I do not think it is comparable that a person with a pensionof £350 a year might go to £445 when the unfortunate person with a pension in the very lowest range is limited to a maximum increase of 50 per cent. I do not make that observation in any spirit of political advantage. I am saying it to the Minister because I feel from my association with him on these problems, that he is as earnest as I am in wanting to right the wrongs. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the greater element of hardship and the greater element of wrong, or of imaginary wrong, must exist in the lowest group of pensions.

I am glad to see certain parts of this Bill become a reality. I have been a constant advocate of the removal of that iniquitous clause of the Bill; I have been a constant advocate of finding, once and for all, a reasonable and rational solution of the root cause of this trouble. The root cause of this trouble rests in the fact that, unfortunately, up to very recent years the question of military service and pensions and everything else was too much in a political atmosphere and too little in a rational atmosphere. Despite all the difficulties and the many problems that are arising in a general way, we can now, in this House, arrive at a reasonable state of independent criticism and independent constructive effort to deal with this problem which is becoming—as is inevitable by the passage of time—a diminishing one.

I am most regretful about what is not contained in this Bill, that is, that some fund is not set aside by the Minister which would prevent us from witnessing, as we witness week after week, the appalling degradation and the appalling misery of some people who, in the extremes of their poverty or their difficulty, have to rely on the sending around of the hat to old comrades, or to those who might have sympathetic association with them, to enable them to accord adequate burial to some of those people who have given honourable and decent service to the State. I should very much like to have seen in this Bill a provision whereby the Minister might have had at his control certain funds from which he could disburse moneys to enable the relativesof some of our honourable dead to avoid the necessity of importuning the good nature of some people, and in many cases people in nearly as difficult circumstances as themselves, for the procuration of decent and adequate burial for some of our 1916 and Old I.R.A. men.

To my mind, this Bill is a step in the right direction, though a warning note was sounded by the Minister that these two measures will cost £400,000. The Minister is in a different position from any other Minister in relation to this problem because this charge will be a diminishing charge. The onward march of Sergeant Death himself, becoming more active in these ranks day by day, will reduce the charge on public funds. I earnestly urge on the members of this House that, in considering this problem in its proper perspective, we should remember in a positive and specific way that no matter what contribution we may make to the last days of these people who are still left with us, it will be microscopic as compared to the contribution which they themselves made in their day so that we might have the right of any decision with regard to them to-day.

I am dealing with this matter purely on the basis that I feel the Minister can improve this Bill. With the kind of unanimous support and atmosphere that is now in the House, I feel that he can come back here to get the Bill enlarged to the extent that we can deal once and for all with those people. I think it is a degrading and an appalling thing that organisations representing the Old I.R.A., and that members of the Old I.R.A., whether pre-Truce or not, have for so long been mendicants in the Lobby looking for satisfaction from successive Governments. There is something indecent about that. It is appalling to find that men who in all honesty and sincerity of purpose, served in those years have now become virtual beggars at the seat of whatever Government may be in power. I earnestly urge on the House that, in dealing with this stage of this code we should once and for all lift this out of the political arena and out of anything in the nature of a sop, and, instead, get down to the business around atable, with representatives of all sections and Parties in this House, of finding out what are the outstanding difficulties, and what is the answer to the problem of bringing in once and for all not piecemeal solutions but one that will be effective as a final solution and so do justice to those who truly deserve justice from this House.

I say with full deliberation that I can appreciate what the Minister's difficulties have been. The dead hand of the Department of Finance is laid very heavily on this Bill, because nobody with the association and experience which the Minister has had in dealing with his own Department could have conceived the pension increases which are designed for the lower groups. I do not believe, and if I did believe it I would be terribly disappointed, that these increases in any way reflect the Minister's honest opinion. That is why I say to him in an earnest way that, with the considerable improvement possible in the atmosphere and spirit in which we can consider these problems to-day, we should try, in a positive way, to get this Bill enlarged, and so deal with all outstanding problems. I say that because the Minister knows as well as I do—so do all Deputies who are interested in this particular subject—that we will no sooner have closed the gaps which the Minister is closing in this Bill than there will be pressure in connection with others. That will only create more trouble for ourselves. We are certainly not dealing with this problem in a reasonable way unless we try and tackle it now on the basis of finding a composite solution of it within this new proposed measure.

In dealing with legislation of this kind, which goes through this House unanimously and with the blessing of us all, we have to contemplate what we can do in a situation where some of those people die leaving completely dependent widows behind them. That is a facet of the situation that is not considered in this Bill. It is one that causes me alarm. We have to envisage the distress that there can be in a home where a surviving officer of the movementfor national liberation leaves behind him a destitute widow. Is it not right, when dealing with another series of amending Bills to this code, that we should give serious thought to that question, and see whether it would not be possible, under the code, to ensure that so long as she survives her husband a widow would at least get sufficient to keep her off public relief or from virtual destitution?

It may seem to members of the House that I am highly critical of this Bill. I am not highly critical of it in this sense that I realise the Minister has been caught in an awkward position. He has had to do his best within what was given to him. As I said earlier, we welcome certain facets of this Bill. We feel that it deals with part of a problem that has been outstanding for a long time. I seriously urge on the Minister that he will have the full co-operation and the unanimous support of this House in his demand for a little more if that little more is once and for all going to give us some kind of a composite solution of this problem. I urge on the Minister that some funds be made available to ensure that this not very edifying practice of passing the hat around when former colleagues are gone might cease. I urge on him that more consideration be given to the problem that has arisen in the past and will arise in the future, with regard to the widows of important and very distinguished soldier husbands. There must be some consideration given to the pensions for those in the lower groups. There will have to be some definite ruling on that. Speaking from recollection, we succeeded in forcing Deputy McGilligan, when Minister for Finance, to make the pension under the Act passed at that time an irreducible £50, and that any pension that was less than £50 would be brought up to that figure.

I do not know if that is possible under this Bill. I certainly think that there was some weird essence of contempt, or some distorted sense of contempt, in the certificates of service that were granted to men who carried pensions as low as some of those men did. Whatever heat may have beenengendered in the past, and no matter what may have happened 30 years ago, I think the time has now arrived for us in this deliberative Assembly to give to those people, during the years that may remain to them, the measure of justice which this House in its unanimous judgment thinks ought to be given to them.

I am saying to the Minister, as I said to him when the Army Bill came before us, can we lift this pensions problem out of the forum of this House and, in a completely representative way, get around a table and use the very many sources of information that are available to the Minister in order to get a general view of the problem and arrive at a Bill that will make a decent contribution to a final settlement of this constantly repeated question of justice for the Old I.R.A.?

I was not born in the days when this service was being rendered but it is full time that we should accept the responsibility of a debt that we owe to those people. If it is possible for us as a Dáil at this stage of our national existence and independence substantially to help by a monetary contribution any of those who may be finding the stress and strain of existence difficult, we should do it, not in a niggardly way and not in a way that can be distorted into an act of unfairness. We should do it in a way that will pay tribute to the service they have given and that will reflect our appreciation of that service and the effective part they played in making possible the Irish Republic of 1953.

Mr. Norton

I want to look at this Bill from a humanitarian and not from a political point of view. I want to put considerations to the Minister which I hope will induce him to make another effort with the Government to improve the scope of this Bill. In so far as the Bill increases military pensions, the Labour Party is strongly in favour of it and wholeheartedly welcomes it. We realise at the same time that the Bill does not bring to an end the claims which have been extant for many years of Old I.R.A. organisations because there is still a feeling of disappointment and frustration and in manyrespects a feeling of disillusionment among many members of that organisation that basically their claims have not been dealt with fairly.

I do not want to accuse the Minister of acting unfairly in this matter. I am quite sure that in this field he has as generous a heart as anyone in this House. Notwithstanding the generosity of an individual Minister, it is not always easy to do the things one wants to do. Therefore, I want to bring to bear on the Minister the viewpoint of the Labour Party in this House that steps should be taken to revise the Bill in a manner that will give a greater measure of satisfaction to those affected by it.

It is true that the Bill provides an increase in pensions which do not exceed £100 per annum by 50 per cent. but it is a sobering thought that more than 80 per cent. of those who are in receipt of pensions receive less than £25 per annum. Many receive pensions as low as £6 13s. 4d. per annum. An increase of 50 per cent. in the case of a pension of £6 13s. 4d. per annum will not make any perceptible impression in the matter of relieving economic difficulties.

Bearing in mind that so many of those who have pensions are in receipt of such low pensions—80 per cent. having less than 10/- per week—there is a strong case for regarding this Bill from the standpoint of lifting the minimum pensions so as to ensure that there will not be minimum pensions as low as £6 13s. 4d. per annum and that there will not be such a number—80 per cent.—with less than 10/- per week.

I do not imagine that it is a fair assessment of the people who served from 1916 to 1921 to say that any of their service, having regard to the risks they took, could be measured by a pension so paltry as £6 13s. 4d. per annum. Certainly, if they had been concerned with their own safety and well-being and future economic outlook and had put that on one side of the scales, it would hardly have been measured by a pension of £6 13s. 4d. per year on the other side of the scales.

I therefore want to plead with theMinister that there ought to be an examination of the problem with a view to making a minimum rate of pension and getting away from these paltry pensions of £6, £7, £8, £10 and £20 per year and recognising frankly that, whatever other obligations this generation has to the past, it has one obligation, a debt of honour to those who fought in the national struggle from 1916 to 1921 and whose service in that struggle and whose sacrifices and endurance made it possible for us to sit in this House to-day and contemplate the introduction of this legislation. That is a debt of honour which this generation must discharge. I do not think that any burden we can impose on this generation is too onerous for it to discharge if we are dealing genuinely and honestly with the legitimate claims of those whose sacrifices have enabled us to inherit this House and the measure of independence and the measure of freedom which we enjoy to-day to legislate for 26 out of our 32 counties.

I plead therefore, first, for a lifting of the pensions, particularly of the lower rates of pension because I think some of the rates are insulting to the recipients. I plead, secondly, for special recognition of 1916 service. Nineteen hundred and sixteen was an epoch which this generation must always regard as transcending every other experience that this generation has had. It is probably the most glorious epoch and the most cherished epoch on which the nation can look back.

If one looks at the assessment of military service pensions, one finds in respect of the ordinary volunteer who went out in 1916 and who went out as a volunteer in 1921, that the recognition accorded to that person in respect of 1916 service is utterly inadequate and bears no relation at all to the risks they took and the defiance of those men who made that epoch possible and who enabled a seed to be sown then which yielded a very generous harvest in freedom and independence in later years.

I plead, therefore, for special recognitionof the claims of those who have 1916 service. In so far as they were then 30 years of age they are 67 years of age now. There cannot be many of them now living. I do not think we would be straining the resources of this country—and certainly we have spent money on less deserving projects —if we were to recognise 1916 service and to accord a minimum pension of £100 per annum to those who have that service. We should frankly recognise that service in that period and in the circumstances of 1916 was well worthy of such recognition. I do not believe that any but the bitterest opponents of Irish independence and the concept of Irish independent nationality would offer the slightest objection to a proposal introduced in this House to provide minimum pensions of £100 per year for 1916 service.

I plead too for another class of person, the man who may have £6 13s. 4d. per year as a pension and who is now approaching the age of 65 or 70, who is finding it, especially in present circumstances, hard to keep a job. Certainly if he is out of a job he is finding it still harder to get one. That person, provided he has a service certificate and a medal, may make a claim for a special allowance. If he is lucky enough to be awarded a special allowance, he gets, I think, a maximum of about £120, subject to a means test. Anybody who has had experience of the means test in that respect knows that it can be a very microscopic arrangement. There are people trying to see what source of income the applicant for such assistance may have. Before that person can get any allowance he must be certified to be incapable of providing sustenance for himself; in other words incapable of self-support. If he is proved to be incapable of self-support, then he may make an application for a special allowance and may get it, subject as I say to a pretty searching means test. If he is lucky, he may get £100 a year. If he has any income coming in to him, that will be subtracted from the £100. My experience in this matter is not unique, but I have seen cases of men with I.R.A service obliged to keep themselvesand a wife on an income as low as £2 a week or even less in the form of an allowance. If we recognise that a special allowance is necessary, if we recognise that it will represent the determination of the nation to ensure that those who served in its hours of travail should not be allowed to experience hunger and hardship in their old age, we ought to make that allowance a reasonable one.

Will anybody attempt to say that £2 a week to-day is a reasonable allowance for an Old I.R.A. man to maintain himself and his wife, to pay rent, to buy clothes and food in the year 1953 when, from the Government's own figures, the present £ is only worth 8/- reckoned on 1939 values? What we are doing with that man is giving him roughly 16/- a week in 1939 purchasing power and we are saying to him: "Our recognition and appreciation of your services to the nation is such that we give you 16/- per week in 1939 purchasing power. That is the admiration we have for your services. Or we will give you 1953 £1 notes which will buy 8/- worth of 1939 standard and expect you to keep yourself and your wife and to have all the amenities of civilised living on such an allowance." I think that is unfair, that the allowance is inadequate. I do not think there is any Deputy on any side who will disagree with what I say.

What we have to recognise, even though cost may be involved, is the debt of honour due by this nation, and especially by this House, to these Old I.R.A. men who have reached a stage of life where they are no longer capable of sustaining themselves by their own efforts. I plead that such a man and his wife ought to get, if he is no longer able to work, an allowance of not less than £250 per annum. I do not know how any man and his wife can live to-day in Dublin, Limerick, Cork or Waterford, or indeed any town or village, on anything less than an income of £5 per week. We are dealing with a small group of people between 60 and 70 years of age, some of them perhaps turned 70. It is a dwindling liability so far as the State is concerned. We ought to be generous in recognising the claim of these people to a decent sustenancein their old age. The situation is not so bad where a person is able to earn a regular income from a job as a tradesman or artisan which is able to keep a man and his wife. But when a man is no longer able by his own exertions to do that, surely it is only fair, if he has had national service, that the State should recognise a moral obligation to keep that person in conditions which would take some cognisance of our appreciation of his services to the nation.

If some of these people had been at Dunkirk or in North France or on the African coast or in any other theatre of war, they would have got a pension substantially higher than we are paying. We ought to have as high a recognition of the services which our people rendered against odds much more terrifying than the odds against which those who have higher pensions fought. I think nobody in this House will question the grant of reasonable pensions to those who are no longer capable of sustaining themselves. Nor do I think they will cavil at the notion of paying a special allowance of £5 a week to the Old I.R.A. man who is unable to maintain himself and his wife by his own efforts and exertions.

The last point I want to put to the Minister is the position of those who apply for a special allowance. The present Act in that respect, in my view, is unduly rigid. It provides that a man may make application for a special allowance, but if, having sifted his means, the board concerned decides that he is not incapable of self-help or that his means are in excess of the minimum allowance allowed before he can be entitled to a special allowance, then his application is rejected. No matter what economic ill may befall him in the following week or the following day, he cannot reopen that claim for another 12 months.

I had a case some time ago in which a person made application for a special allowance. He was unable to work but his wife was a cleaner and caretaker in a particular building. The board took into consideration the wife's income and said to him: "You are not eligible. Your wife's earnings preclude you from getting a special allowance."Two letters came to his house on the one day, one rejecting his own claim for a special allowance and another giving notice to his wife that her services were no longer required. That case could not be reopened for another 12 months. That is an unfair provision.

Under the old age pension code, if you can show that your means have decreased, you can instantaneously make a fresh application for an old age pension. Why do we permit old age pensioners to make application for an increase in their pensions or people to apply for a pension when there is a change in their means and not permit the old soldier of the national struggle to do the same? It is certainly unfair to say to a man: "No matter how your circumstances may deteriorate, no matter what hardship has befallen you or how much circumstances have changed to your disadvantage, we will not look at your case for another 12 months." That may make for administrative tidiness and may save work at headquarters, but it is not fair or just. It is not a human way of treating the people who have a claim and who will always have a claim on your consideration in the matter of treating them sympathetically. The provision which provides only for an annual review should be amended and once a person can show that his circumstances have changed he ought to be eligible to renew his application for the special allowance.

These are some points which I wanted to raise on the Bill. I do not make these points by way of personal criticism of the Minister, whose sympathy in this matter is at least as high as mine or that of any other Deputy. I want to put it to the Minister that this is a human problem, not a political problem. I would not like to see it discussed in a political atmosphere or against a political background. I think there is goodwill on both sides of the House in the desire of every Deputy to give a fair deal, and it may well be a new deal, to the Old I.R.A. If the nation has to bear the cost of doing that I do not think it will shrink from the task.

Major de Valera

At the end of his introductory remarks the Minister referred, presumably in relation to expenditure, to further provisions for Army pensions. I think his remark gives me liberty now to make an observation before I come to the specific matter contained in this Bill.

When we come to deal with these further provisions following on from this Bill, I hope that the question of widows and dependents of Army personnel killed in the course of service will be treated on a basis which will meet their case. It is not sufficient to treat the case of such widows and dependents on the basis of superannuation. We have made that case before. We will, of course, have an opportunity when that measure comes up of controverting some of the statements made in the last debate we had on this subject. I want, however, to take this opportunity of appealing to the Minister to look at that particular problem from the insurance point of view. There are cases where an officer, N.C.O., or man has been killed in the course of his duty and the circumstances are such as to take those cases out of the run of merely ordinary pension and superannuation. Such cases should really be considered on an insurance basis. I hope that this matter will be treated in the way in which we have asked that it should be treated. I shall leave the point now until such time as we know what the Minister proposes to do.

Coming to the present Bill, we are still faced with the question of trying to do what can be done for those people who have given service within the categories catered for by this measure. Sometimes in the past there was a certain resistance to measures of this kind but to-day everybody is agreed that the people who are the subject of this Bill should be treated as generously as possible and that their service should be recognised in a practical way.

What has been the limitation on successive Governments? In the past there were some people who, overtly or otherwise, were not too keen to support I.R.A. pensioners. If there are any such to-day they do not appear tobe very vocal. To-day everybody seems to be agreed. What is the obstacle to conceding all the claims and meeting all the points made? The obstacle is obviously the question of finding the money. Successive Ministers have been faced with the difficulty of financing these schemes. It is quite obvious that the present Minister is anxious to be as generous as he possibly can in present circumstances. The principal difficulty is, as the Minister has stated, that in all State outgoings the ultimate source of revenue is the taxpayer in one form or another. It is all very well for Deputy S. Collins to talk about the dead hand of finance. He will probably be one of the most vocal here when it comes to the live hand of finance trying to collect the money to run the country. One cannot have it both ways.

Mr. S. Collins

I think it would be far better to spend money on the I.R.A. than on Aer Linte.

Major de Valera

We are all agreed that these people who serve the country are deserving of the best consideration we can give them. The remarks made by Deputy Collins are a little bit one-sided. If we are serious in this we must grapple with the problem facing the Minister. At least the Minister has introduced the present measure. The principal problem, as Deputy Collins knows, is that of finance. That problem exists in relation to all State activities. We will shortly have a Health Bill coming up for discussion and many of us will be somewhat staggered at the amount involved under the provisions of that Bill. We have social services. We have all sorts of expenditure voted here. When a question of expenditure comes up here everybody vies with everybody else in asking to have the money voted, but when we come to the question of raising the money people are not quite so unanimous.

I do not raise this matter on this particular Bill for the purpose of making an issue of the relatively small sum of money here involved compared with over-all State expenditure. I raise the point so that we may comedown to earth and approach this subject in a practical manner. Looking at it fairly and squarely, I think the Minister is to be congratulated in being able to make the provision he has made at the present moment in present circumstances. From the point of view of the State we have a situation of considerable financial stringency in which it is extremely difficult to find the money for all the things for which it has to be found because of the many demands on State revenues. Although the Minister has not been able to do what he would like to do if he could, I think he has done a great deal in present circumstances. Deputy Collins' approach to-day is to say the least of it hardly objective. We are all agreed on a number of points put forward by Deputy Collins. We are certainly sympathetic to what he appeared to put forward as the activating motive. Let Deputy Collins consider the matter now as a serious down-to-earth parliamentarian, and not merely as someone making a speech on an occasion. If he does that, he will see that the Minister has done very well in the circumstances.

I am sure that Deputy Norton when he was a member of a Government was motivated by the same sentiments as he expressed to-day. I am sure it was not lack of goodwill on the part of Deputy Norton and his colleagues that prevented his Government doing anything like this. I think that point alone should be some answer to Deputy Collins'—I may possibly be wronging him—oblique attack on the Minister to-day.

Mr. S. Collins

I think the Deputy must be a little dull this afternoon. I attacked no Minister.

Major de Valera

We are all agreed that the whole problem is that of finding the money. That is the problem in many things.

Mr. S. Collins

I do not think anybody would cavil at £200,000 extra being spent under this Bill.

Major de Valera

Deputy Norton was a Minister in a Government inwhich the Minister for Finance at the time gave this answer in relation to practically the same question; I am sure Deputy Norton was not prevented by want of goodwill at the time because I have heard him express on former occasions sentiments similar to those he expressed here to-day, and I ask Deputy Collins to realise that the Government has to face practical problems; it cannot just wave a wand and work miracles. Here is the answer given by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, at column 1228 of Volume 117 of the Official Report on the 19th July, 1949, in relation to superannuation and retired allowances and this has a bearing on pensions:—

"The difficulty with having any minimum is that there is such a large class involved. Some Deputies introduced the question of military service pensions. They are not included in this for the reason that they were not, when given, supposed to be a gratuity intended for the maintenance or support of the beneficiary, but rather as an acknowledgment of service rendered. They were never put on the basis of pensions, although the phrase was used in regard to them. Of course, our military service pensions are very costly. They cost nearly £400,000 yearly. The average pension would be about £30. If there is any minimum struck and if there is any question of bringing in a military service pensions hereafter—I am certainly against it at the moment— then, of course, such an increase as would ensure that no one would have less than £50 could be very costly. Even with the class I am dealing with at the moment—civil servants, Gardaí, R.I.C. and teachers—there are over 900 who are on the £50 and under scale. However, before the legislation goes through I will have that considered but the cost is something which has to be borne in mind."

That is the paragraph from a speech by Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Norton's colleague in Government when they were both in Government.

Mr. S. Collins

Did you succeed in making Deputy McGilligan accept the £50 minimum?

Captain Cowan

The legislation did not give one penny increase.

Mr. Norton

Before you go on would you tell us whether you have convenient reference to the fact that in 1949 the last Government introduced a Bill to enable people to reopen their claims for pensions which had previously been rejected and which your Government previously refused to allow them to do?

Major de Valera

As a matter of fact, this Government had opened the claims before that again and is opening them once more in this Bill.

Mr. Norton

It is not.

Major de Valera

Let us keep to the point. Let Deputy Norton not think I am attacking him. I am not.

Mr. Norton

I am a bit suspicious of your kindness at the moment.

Major de Valera

As Deputy Norton says, it is better to look at this objectively. Deputy McGilligan said they were not meant to be pensions but tokens. That is what he has said in that statement, if the Deputy likes to read it. However, we are agreed now that we are looking at it from the point of view of pensions. The point I am trying to make is this. There is a fundamental difficulty which was presumably the reason why the previous Government, the Coalition, was not able to do anything in the matter. It is the reason why there was any difficulty in regard to this Government doing anything. In spite of that, however, it can, at least, be said that the Minister, with the straightforward sincerity that is characteristic of him, has, obviously, very tenaciously sought to get the best measure he possibly could in the circumstances. I believe he has succeeded in getting this and when one looks back on the history of the matter and the difficulties that obviously confronted other people who were interested in the past, as evidenced by that quotation, I thinkthe present Minister did very well for those people in the circumstances.

I feel the Bill should be welcomed. That is not to say we should regard ourselves as having ultimately arrived at finality in anything. My own view would largely coincide, as far as it would be practicable to do it, with the general view that was expressed by Deputies in this matter, but there are, as in many other questions, not so much two sides as practical difficulties in putting it through. I would recommend that the House would put this Bill through in a spirit of commendation because the Minister has gone very far in it to meet the claims that have been put upon him. It is unfair to make what I call the oblique attack —because it was not made directly— that was made by Deputy Collins.

Mr. S. Collins

Would the Deputy say what oblique attack I made on the Minister?

Major de Valera

When we get down to the facts there are two things that have to be weighed up in all these things and if we can weigh them up we can get somewhere. We have got somewhere with this Bill and I hope if there are any other matters in this connection to be straightened out —and there probably are—we can straighten them in the future.

Mr. S. Collins

I do not make oblique attacks on people. If I make an attack on anybody it is direct.

Captain Cowan

I was rather surprised by some of the language that was used by Deputy Collins. I do not think it was language that should have been used in regard to the old comrades of the Old I.R.A. This reference to mendicants is a reference that is objectionable and it should not be made.

Deputy de Valera has referred to one matter of which we all know: that in 1949, led by the present Minister, this House, almost unanimously, sought an increase in military service pensions from the then Minister for Finance and the then Government. The then Minister refused to grant onehalfpenny increase in military service pensions. It would be wrong that that should be left out of the record, and no amount of windy rhetoric here will alter that fact. When there was a change of Government we went to the present Minister and to other Ministers and there were deputations from the Old I.R.A. There was a motion here from Deputy Keane which received unanimous support.

Mr. Keane

And there were no recriminations on either side.

Captain Cowan

No. We actually sought the help of the Government in making increases in the military service pensions. Undoubtedly there are, as Deputy Norton and Deputy Collins say, injustices in the military service pensions code, but those injustices are there because originally, in 1924, when the first Act was brought in, there was a mean attitude of mind in regard to the whole matter. The military service pensions code was born in a mean mentality in 1924 and it lasted from 1924 to 1934, when the new Government brought in another Pensions Bill. Unfortunately they based it on the mean mentality of the 1924 Act, and if we have pensions as low as £6 13s. 4d. a year now the responsibility rests on the people who introduced, with their mean mentality, that type of pension in 1924.

That is the foundation of the position we are in to-day, and I want to say right off the reel that when I read the White Paper of the Bill which was circulated by the Minister and which we are now discussing, my first reaction to that was: is it possible that the Minister has been able to make these improvements? I was pressing for improvements but I thought, in view of the financial position, in view of the refusal over a period of almost 30 years to grant increases, that the increases that were in the Bill could not be in it. I think every Deputy should start off by congratulating the Minister on the steps he has taken and the advances he has made in this Bill.

It is true that there are pensions referred to that are miserable—contemptible would be the word I would use in regard to them—but what theMinister has set out to do is to give 50 per cent. increase in those. I agree that that is not sufficient—there ought to be a reasonable minimum pension— but it is not right for a Deputy like Deputy Norton, who was for over three years a member of a Government which refused to bring in even a 1 per cent. increase, to complain now when a 50 per cent. increase has been brought in.

I would like to see a little bit of reason and common sense in our approach to a problem such as this. It is very hard to listen to the nonsense that we had from Deputy Collins when he got up to speak after the Minister had finished.

Mr. S. Collins

Where was the nonsense?

Captain Cowan

Windy rhetoric is the only way I can describe it.

Mr. S. Collins

You pious "ould" cod.

Captain Cowan

There was not a practical approach to any point in the whole Bill.

Mr. S. Collins

You go ahead now and show us where your practical approach is.

Captain Cowan

There was not even a suggestion of a reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is meant to be lapped up by foolish people outside. This Bill does not achieve everything that I would like, but it has gone a long way and the Minister and the Government ought to be congratulated.

Mr. O'Leary

And the four Independents.

Captain Cowan

The four Independents have put forward as members of this House publicly here the recommendation that such a Bill should be brought in—just as we did in the period of office of the last Government. We see achievement now; we did not see it then. We should approach this on a different basis from that of references to mendicants and to the hatgoing round to bury members of the Old I.R.A.

Mr. O'Leary

They died in the county homes. For 16 years——

Mr. S. Collins

It is not an indictment of the Old I.R.A. but an indictment of the people who let that happen. You cannot twist reality into that.

Mr. Hickey

I prefer to deal with the I.R.A. as they deserve to be dealt with, instead of all this cross-fire.

Captain Cowan

Every Deputy who realises what the Old I.R.A. contributed to this country would support an increase in those minimum pensions. Deputy Norton refers to the terrifying experience through which those men went. It was terrifying. It did not terrify the Old I.R.A.: it may have terrified people who were old enough to be in the I.R.A. at that time and were not in it.

Mr. McGrath

Do not be too hard on them.

Mr. O'Leary

I believe some of the people who signed forms——

Captain Cowan

I dislike ráiméis and nonsense and rubbish. What I want to do here, if it can be done, is to get a Bill that will solve all the difficulties and remove all the objections to the old legislation.

Mr. O'Leary

The Independents can do that very easily. It has been in their hands for the last 18 months.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary should cease interrupting.

Captain Cowan

I would like to support the view, not of Deputies alone but of many in Old I.R.A. organisations outside, that the minimum pension has not been approached in this Bill in a way that will remove causes of grievance, causes of objection and agitation in the future. Now that the Minister has made such a serious effort to deal with the problem, I think he would find this House unanimous in supporting him in going so much further. I would like to make the followingsuggestions, having dealt already with the suggestion that the minimum pension be increased.

There are persons who have been left out of account in the legislation and I think they should not have been left out. I refer particularly to the children of 1916 leaders, children who suffered so much and perhaps considerably through the sacrifices that were made by their parents—not only in 1916 but in the years preceding, in preparation for 1916. I do not want to be more specific, as I think the Minister knows the cases that I have in mind. Certainly, the children of those great men should receive special recognition from the State and I do not think anyone would raise any objection to it.

I agree with what has been said in regard to the special allowances. I think it was the Minister who introduced the special allowances provision first. It is a very useful one and one that has not been sufficiently appreciated. I agree with Deputy Norton that the condition whereby it can be examined only once in 12 months makes for hardship and that provision should be altered.

The Minister proposes to extend the time for a period of six months for new applications for pensions or petitions and perhaps for medals. I think the Minister might leave that time limit out of it altogether. It may be that something will turn up from some part of the world at some time, having heard nothing whatsoever about our legislation over the last 30 years. No great upset would be caused by removing the time limit altogether and letting any person at any time apply for a pension. After all, there are only a few years to run, anyway.

It is difficult to bring my next point within this Bill, but I would like to mention it. It is that service in the Old I.R.A. should count as service in the civil service, in the local government service or in any State service. In that way, the crediting of that particular I.R.A. service would assist in getting increased pensions for those people from the local or Government service. It is only right that that should be so, because the person whojoined the State service at the time that another man joined the I.R.A. can retire at the same date as the I.R.A. man and receive a much larger pension. Credit should be given in all State services for previous service in the I.R.A. I came across a particular case yesterday of a sergeant of the Garda who had been in 1918 his local company commander. He served as an officer in the I.R.A. right up to the Truce. He joined the Garda about the time they were established and had to retire under the age limit within the past 12 months on a pension of £3 15s. per week. If, instead of serving in the I.R.A. and if, instead of serving in the Guards and reaching the rank of sergeant—a force in which he had a very honourable record—that man had served under a local authority, the Dublin Corporation, for instance, as the driver of a car, he would have a pension of over £7 per week. That is unfair discrimination and it could be provided for by the provision I advocate of crediting pre-Truce service as service under the Government.

I am glad, and I think everyone will be delighted, to see the decision of the Minister to abolish that provision in regard to abatement of pensions. It was a pin-pricking provision. Many Deputies have worked very hard for many years, interviewing many Ministers for Finance and Ministers for Defence, in an effort to remove that particular clause. It is going now and we all should be very pleased and delighted to see the end of it.

One of the great difficulties in regard to these pensions Acts is the matter of interpretation and only to-day I came across a case which completely amazed me. Under the provisions of the Military Service Pensions Acts, a person is entitled to a pension on the basis of the rank he held in 1924, or if he was serving in the Defence Forces, the rank he had when he left the Defence forces. He is paid on the higher of the two ranks—the 1924 rank or, if he leaves in 1953, under the 1953 Act. That is specific and clear, but I came across the case to-day of a man serving in the Defence Forces in 1924 as a sergeant who, in 1935, was considered fit to be commissioned. Hewas commissioned in 1935 and served from 1935 until June of 1951 when he retired with the rank of commandant. When he applied for his pension, he was told—I have the letter from the Secretary of the Department of Defence here—that he is entitled only to his pension as a sergeant. In my view, that is a cruel interpretation of the Act and I hope to prove it.

Mr. Traynor

But it is an accurate interpretation.

Captain Cowan

I am saying it is cruel and I want to deal with it. If a soldier in non-commissioned rank is to be commissioned, an extraordinary procedure grew up whereby he was discharged from the Defence Forces and was then commissioned. I remember at the time discussing it and feeling that it was entirely wrong. It is a good many years ago but I felt it was wrong and I opposed it. I must say that I never foresaw the possibility of a case such as this arising. I thought it ridiculous, because the service should be continuous and in fact is continuous, except for this fictional discharge. This man is commissioned on a date in 1935, and, in order to be commissioned, there is what I can best describe as this fictional discharge on that day or the day previous. He is then commissioned but that soldier has not ceased to serve. I might put this to the Minister: If he is discharged, on getting a commission, that is the date of his discharge and he would be entitled to his military service pension as from that date. As from the date of discharge, he is entitled under the Act, if he was discharged, to his pension from that date and should have been receiving it during all the period he was in the Army from 1935 to date.

Mr. Traynor

But not if he rejoined the Army.

Captain Cowan

Yes; the man who rejoins the Army who is entitled to a military service pension is entitled to receive it during his period of service in the Army.

Mr. Keane

Does he actually receive it?

Captain Cowan

The case I am dealing with is the case of a man who applied for his pension and was told that he is entitled to a pension of £22 10s. a year as a sergeant. He retired with the rank of commandant, having served from 1935 to 1951, 16 years, after his service as a sergeant terminated. There is no break in that man's service and he is entitled to be paid his pension as a commandant. If there is any doubt about the interpretation—I have described it as cruel but the Minister says it is a correct interpretation——

Mr. Traynor

No, accurate.

Captain Cowan

Perhaps. My view is that it is inaccurate as well as cruel, but I have not got the responsibility of interpreting it. If there is any doubt about this, this is the opportunity to deal with it, and I ask the Minister to bring in the necessary amendment to correct the situation and put it right, so far as this officer is concerned. I probably would have the right to bring in an amendment, though it might be ruled by the Chair as imposing a charge on public funds, but I could argue that with the Chair because I would say that my amendment was an amendment designed to remove doubts as to the interpretation. However, this Bill gives an opportunity of putting the matter right.

I welcome the courageous decision of the Minister, after all the refusals we have had, to increase military service pensions, and I am sure the Minister agrees with the speakers who had said that the minimum has not been raised enough. The Minister has his difficulties with regard to it, but, with goodwill on the part of every Deputy and with a unanimous appeal to the Minister and to the Government, we may be able to remove the objections which exist with regard to these limitations. I hope that occasions such as this will not be availed of for the purpose of referring to our old comrades as mendicants. They did carry the responsibility of establishing this State and they carried it proudly. There is no circumstance which, I believe, would make my former comrades mendicants.

Mr. Keane

I should like to start at the point of rendering unto Cæsar what is Cæsar's. On the few occasions on which I approached the Minister in relation to these matters, he showed sympathy and consideration. I am not going to say that he should not do so, as an old soldier, but I will say that it was always a pleasure to discuss with him anomalies which affected the Old I.R.A. I take this opportunity to thank him personally for the manner in which he treated any representations made to him and upon the way in which he introduced the present Bill which, although it may not be a panacea for all our ills, represents another step in the right direction. Like Deputy Cowan, I believe that the Bills introduced in 1924 and 1934 were measures introduced in a peculiar atmosphere and, if you like, were inspired by a somewhat unbalanced mentality. I have an idea that they were both measures of expediency. However, like the first stone that has to be laid before a house is built, they were the foundation for the other Acts. Some of us tried to put in the damp course, and now, perhaps, we are trying to cover in the structure.

There are two matters which I should like to put before the Minister which he may find it possible to deal with by way of amendment on the Committee Stage. However, my first duty, in fact I should say it is my first love, is to the 1916 men who at the moment are in the winter of their lives. Most of us here are comparatively young men, and even some of us who were there in 1916 cannot say that we are yet in the winter of our lives, but there is no doubt that the majority of the men connected with the 1916 Insurrection are in the winter of their lives. I think that the Minister can afford to be more than generous with the few that are still left. I do not believe that anyone would object to a proposal to increase their pensions by a very generous amount. I do not want to make political capital out of this. The very few 1916 men who reside in my constituency do not even vote for me, but there is no doubt that, in the City of Dublin, members of the old Dublin Brigade who answered the callon Easter Monday of 1916, after having been disappointed on the previous Sunday, are suffering under anomalies that many of us do not realise. I would ask the Minister to review their cases with a view to ascertaining whether he can do anything to assist them substantially.

Again, there are widows of Old I.R.A. men who have to be provided for under the Social Security Acts. I have before my mind the case of the widow of Michael O'Donoghue, Ballygiblin, Mitchelstown, who was a small farmer, and what is known down the country as a country carpenter. He left a widow and 11 children after him, and she is now in receipt of a widow's pension under the non-contributory scheme. I think that the Minister could embrace cases such as that under his pension scheme so that the orphans of Irish soldiers might be brought up in a way that would conduce to their advancement in the future.

I should also like to make a suggestion to the Minister with regard to applicants who appealed and the amount of whose pensions was actually reduced on appeal. I am afraid that the reduction was not due to the board's ascertaining that these people had not the service upon which they were originally awarded the pension but was due to some sinister influence exercised by somebody who at one time or another was deemed to be a certifying officer. Some of these certifying officers were very fine men, but more of them feathered their own nest and then proceeded to feather their friends' nests. I made this statement on a previous occasion. I have a case in mind, the circumstances of which I know personally and I asked the last Minister when he introduced his Bill in 1949, to take that case into consideration, but I met with an iron curtain. I hope there will be some flexibility in regard to that case under this Bill. The man concerned was one of Ireland's soldiers who was there at any time he was wanted. He underwent three hunger strikes as a guest of King George in England. Unfortunately for himself, he may be a little arrogant at times. We have a lot of brass hats who when they get a little authority do not exactly know what hats fitthem. I am informed, though I cannot vouch for this personally, that an attendant in a mental hospital who applied and got service from the Pensions Board had that service deducted for superannuation purposes in the Department of Health. I do not know if that is a fact, but I would ask the Minister to make some inquiries in regard to it. I shall probably be able to give him more specific information at a later date.

Four hundred thousand pounds looks a pretty big sum, but it must be remembered that since the first Pensions Act was introduced in 1924 there has been a big saving due to the fact that many of our old friends who were entitled to pensions have entered Valhalla, a saving which I would estimate at about £500,000. If the Minister adheres strictly to the terms of the Bill, he may take it that due to the diminishing number qualifying for pensions every year, there will be a big reduction on the £400,000 which he mentioned.

Every month and almost every week you will see accounts in the daily Press, the Irish Press, theIrish Independent, theCork Examinerand in the provincial newspapers of a soldier's funeral. I presume that that soldier carried his pension with him to the grave, and that he did not leave it after him to benefit anybody in this world. I hope the Minister will give all the 1916 medals that are there. I am very thankful for a 50 per cent. increase.

I do not know the percentage who would be in receipt of pensions from £6 to £30, but I do think that these are miserable sums of money to offer to any man for service. If service was assessed at £6 that would mean a half a year for officers and a whole year for non-commissioned officers. I wonder if the Minister would grade these people up to a standard sum. I do not want to suggest anything that would entangle the Minister in the tentacles of the octopus of finance, but if the Minister tried to get as much as he could he would not be doing a bad day's work at all. I would ask the Minister to consider the case of the pensioners inreceipt of small pensions, and give them something that would help them to carry on in their avocations or rear their families. I am very glad that you cleared——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should use the third person and should not address the Minister across the floor of the House.

Mr. Keane

I said "I am very glad". I did not go any further than that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy used the second person. He should use the third person.

Mr. Keane

I am very sorry. I wish to conclude by again congratulating the Minister on bringing this pension business to roof level. In the foreseeable future we may be able to make improvements. Perhaps if we had a Dáil composed of members who were not as conversant with the old days as we are we might get better consideration.

The provision of medal allowances is a step in the right direction and I hope that when the Minister is drafting the allowances he will not be too meagre and will not impose upon applicants too many regulations such as those mentioned by Deputy Norton. Deputy Captain Cowan introduced tactics which were not exactly clean. We may not all have the same physical and moral courage as Deputy Captain Cowan. I emphasise the word "moral" but this Bill should be discussed without any recriminations. It would be futile for me to say that political kudos could not be made out of it. I know very well—in this connection I include myself—that it is only human nature that when we get the chance we avail of it.

A lot of the people who spoke were afraid to strike up to the time my motion was tabled. I am glad that we have done a good day's work for those in receipt of I.R.A. pensions and that they will benefit as a result of this Bill.

Mr. Colley

I want frankly to congratulate the Minister on this Bill. As one who has agitated for it for anumber of years, both in opposition and otherwise, I think that in the times that exist—times of financial stringency—the Minister has done very well indeed in the Bill that is before us. Admittedly, there are a number of points that we all might like to see improved but, taking the Bill by and large, I think that the Minister has succeeded admirably in the Bill before us. He has dealt with a number of the grievances and anomalies that we have been talking about for years. If he has not dealt with them in this Bill then they will be dealt with in the Bill that he has told us is to come in the next few weeks, matters such as the question of the special allowances, medals, the date of their issue and other things like that.

Big points that have never been dealt with before were raised. They were not dealt with. I am sure that is not because the Minister would not like personally to deal with them but because of the fact that circumstances do not allow him to deal with them. The increases in pensions, as explained in the White Paper, are exactly the same as that given in 1949 by the Coalition Government to other pensioners. At that time an effort was made to have the Old I.R.A. men included and the Minister for Finance of the day could not see his way to do it. At that time there was not the same reason financially for not doing it as there would be to-day. In spite of that, however, the Minister succeeded in doing very well.

One matter which I am particularly glad to see ended under this Bill is that of the abatement of pensions. Deputy Cowan referred to it as "pin-pricking". I think it was far more than pin-pricking. It was a gross injustice to a number of men whom I know—a number of men who had their jobs even before the foundation of the Volunteers and who, because of the nature of their employment, were refused the pension which the board had awarded them for their service. I think that that was an injustice and I congratulate the Minister on its abolition.

I should like to add my voice to the appeal which has been made hereto the Minister in regard to rejected claims for special allowances and the fact that they cannot be reopened for a period of 12 months. It is a matter which might lead to administrative difficulties, but I believe they could be surmounted. Undoubtedly it is a terrible hardship on a man who, owing to his bad circumstances, would be entitled to a special allowance but who has to await the elapse of a full 12 months before the matter can be reopened. Where it can be shown that an applicant's circumstances have changed from the time he made his prior application, I think it should be possible to have his case gone into again and the allowance granted. As somebody said here this evening, it is not a humane way of dealing with such cases and, whatever the difficulties may be, I think they should be tackled and dealt with.

The minimum pension was mentioned here. I do not suppose that, because of financial difficulties, it would be possible to bring in minimum pensions at the present time, but, even if it were, it might create bigger difficulties than the present position. A sum of £50 a year was mentioned. You could have men who succeeded in getting ten years' service from the board receiving only the same as a man who gave only a couple of months. I consider that there would be big grievances on the part of people who were able to prove that they gave the real service and who would be getting only the same as a man who came in, maybe, only for a few months.

Again, I should like to congratulate the Minister and to express the hope that when better times come we shall be able to improve still further on certain aspects of the Bill.

Captain Giles

I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction to settle many of the grievances of the Old I.R.A. I congratulate the Minister on keeping his word. He told us he would bring in this Bill, and he has done so. I cannot, however, congratulate the Minister on his efforts, because I am satisfied that he has left many things out of this Bill.

When we are talking in this House about the claims of the Old I.R.A.,there is no need for heated discussion. I am sorry that heated discussion took place to-day. Deputy Cowan alleged that Deputy Seán Collins said that the Old I.R.A. men are mendicants. He did not say any such thing. I heard what Deputy Collins said. He said that the Government of the day were trying to make mendicants of the Old I.R.A. That is altogether different from Deputy Cowan's version of what he said.

We of the Old I.R.A. were held up to public contempt for a number of years because of the Pensions Bill. I regret that a Pensions Bill was ever introduced. We have had 30 years of the greatest amount of growling and fighting and of getting nowhere. If a decent gratuity had been given to those who served in the Old I.R.A. or the Army—instead of introducing a Pensions Bill in 1924—I believe it would have solved our difficulties and ended our troubles. That should have been given to men who fought on either side during the civil war, whether in the Army or in the Irregulars. We see now the result of the introduction of that Bill in 1924. It has brought on this country 30 years of disunity. I believe we would have had unity years ago were it not for that matter.

In this Bill a fair measure of relief is given to the people with the bigger pensions. Take my own case. I am satisfied that the little relief I am getting is good. What about the underdogs? The Old I.R.A., like all underdogs, have not got the relief to which they are entitled. Something will have to be done about the matter. Take a man with a pension of £6 a year. There are thousands of them. I know eight of them in my own company. Of what use is an extra £3 a year to them? It is useless. That is where I find that this Bill does not meet with our expectations. I appeal to the Minister and to this House to make a better effort to relieve the lot of the underdog. Those men who are drawing pensions under £1 a week have a genuine grievance and it should be remedied.

When we were fighting for ourcountry we never thought of pensions. We never sought pensions. They were forced on us because of the peculiar situation which existed in 1924. At that time the civil war was over and the Army was being disbanded. Some men were getting only a small pittance after having given service from 1916 to 1924. They were quite right not to accept the pittance from the Government of the day. As a result of all the commotion, the then Government had to do something and they brought in a Pensions Bill. I am sorry that, instead, they did not give a decent gratuity. When a new Government came into office in 1932 they took on where the previous Government had left off. We have had Pensions Bill after Pensions Bill and pensions board after pensions board—and hundreds of cases have not yet been dealt with after 30 years.

We of the Old I.R.A. who were the proud custodians of the nation's trust, handed a free nation to the younger generation and we now find that we are held up to contempt not only in this House but in the country. There may be men in this House who say: "I wish I never heard of an Old I.R.A. man." I say to such men that we were the smallest band of men to free a country. We did so with great sacrifice. We saw our best comrades laid low before their time. We saw the distress and the misery which many of those who survived had to endure. We saw their undertakings ruined and their careers destroyed. Some embarked on the emigrant ship to Australia and elsewhere in order to eke out a living. That is all that they got for striking a blow for the freedom of their country. It was a sad and unfortunate state of affairs. The grievances of the Old I.R.A. men still remain. A man who has been drawing £6 or £8 a year will now receive only another £3 or so. Do you think that that is just? Something will have to be done about it. You will find that more Bills of this nature will be introduced either by the present Government or by the next Government.

We do not want that. We are asking the Minister to give us a Bill that will do justice to those men once and for all. Something should be donefor those in the lower grades. Justice has never been done to them. They are in receipt of small pittances of from £6 to £20 a year. I say they are entitled to £1 a week. Give them that for the few years that remain to them. Even those of them who joined the movement in their early years are now fairly well on, and if a man is entitled to a pension he should, at least, get £1 a week. The small pittances they have do not represent the measure of justice to which they are entitled.

With regard to service medals, my opinion is that anyone who got one was entitled to a pension. The reason why many did not get pensions was because they could not get the certificates required. Some of the officers who could have given a certificate had died, while others refused to give the certificate which would entitle a man to a pension. Those men were given the medals but no pension. I think that the medal should carry with it a gratuity. The medal may be all right for a man who is 80 or 90 per cent. disabled because he has a special allowance. I think that a man who gets a medal should be entitled to £100 in cash by way of a gratuity. These are points I would ask the Minister to consider.

I would also ask that these military service pensions should be paid free of income-tax. I know myself many men in Dublin who were out in 1916 who are in a bad way. I have got appeals from them myself. Something special should be done for them by way of a gratuity. They would thus be saved having to go to the home assistance officer for help.

I would ask the Minister to have this whole Bill reviewed so that it might go from this House as a measure that had the unanimous support of all Parties. In that way justice could be done to the men concerned.

As regards many of those who are in receipt of the top grade pensions, they do not mind whether they get any increase or not because they are now in big positions and are well off men. They have done well for themselves. Some of them have moremoney than they know what to do with. They are not worrying whether their pensions are increased or not. I am appealing on behalf of those who are in receipt of the lower grade pensions. Some of them are working on the roads and others are drawing home assistance. They have never received justice, and are not getting it under this Bill. Any man drawing a military service pension should not have less than £1 a week. I believe that if the Old I.R.A. members of the House were brought together in a room in Leinster House they would be able to formulate a Bill that would give satisfaction to all their old comrades. I suggest that the Minister should consider that. I find, too, that many widows and orphans of some Old I.R.A. men are in a state of dire distress. Some of those widows were left with seven or eight children. I think special allowances should be paid in those cases.

I must congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. I know that his hands were tied, due to financial considerations. In bringing it forward he had to fight his battle in the Cabinet, and he had some tough men to meet there. We are not satisfied with the Bill, but we are satisfied that it represents a fair measure of justice. It does not represent full justice. I am principally concerned to see that something is done by way of amendment to step up the pensions of those in the lower grades. It is a remarkable thing that, in all cases of this kind, it is the underdog who always gets knocked on the head first, last and all the time. Those in the upper grades have no need to worry. I know many of these Old I.R.A. men in the Midlands, and they are living in the most miserable circumstances. They are poorer to-day than when they left their homes as young men to fight for the freedom of the country. I know, of course, that you will hear people ask: "What have the Old I.R.A. to grumble about?" They have this to grumble about, that justice was never done to them under the first, second, third or any other Governments that we have had. Justice is not being done to them under this Bill either. I want, however, togive the Minister credit for bringing in the Bill and in making this effort in spite of the financial stringency of the times. I suggest to him that he will have to go to the Minister for Finance again and tell him that we in the Dáil cannot accept his Bill, and that he will have to do something better. I hope that on the Committee Stage we will be able to improve the Bill immensely, especially so far as the lower grade pensioners are concerned.

Dr. Browne

As regards the financial provisions of this Bill, I feel there are Deputies on both sides of the House who are more competent to deal with them than I am. Any criticism of them can, I think, best be handled by those who are in close touch with the people affected. I am quite certain that the latter will be treated as generously as it is possible for the country to treat them. In a general way, I would like to say that I feel that a minimum pension of anything less than £1 a week is of very little use at the present time, especially when we consider the value of money to-day. I agree with Deputy Giles that, if any increases are to be given, they should go to those in the lower pension grades. I imagine that they are the people who need the money most and would benefit most from any increase given. As regards those on the upper scale of pensions, I gather from the general discussion that most of them are fairly well off in life, and that any increase would not mean much to them.

I should like now to deal with the machinery of the medical pensions board. There is amongst a number of Old I.R.A. pensioners a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the operations of the board. Generally speaking, one hears nothing but praise of the actual personnel, and that there is a tremendous amount of consideration given to the claims of men coming before the board. They are treated well and courteously. Every help and consideration is given to them. But, somehow or another, limitations have appeared to spring up around the operations of the board. It is with these limitations and disabilities thatI am particularly concerned. One of the first points is in relation to St. Bricin's Hospital. Apparently, when a man is brought back on an appeal for the first time, he quite commonly finds it necessary to be readmitted to St. Bricin's Hospital. His difficulty is that he may be called to St. Bricin's and find that, due to the fact that the hospital is dealing with many outside interests other than his, he may be kept waiting as long as a fortnight before his case is dealt with. St. Bricin's deals with other cases.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy wandering a bit? This Bill deals purely with military service. It does not deal with wounds or disability.

Dr. Browne

Yes, Sir, but, unfortunately, this is a Bill to amend the other Bills and under the regulations made, under the power of these Bills, a number of things are happening or a number of anomalies arise for which Deputies cannot legislate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The other Bill deals with military service also. This is a Bill to amend a Military Service Pensions Bill. There is a Bill which deals with wounds and disability but it does not arise on this.

Mr. Brennan

He is dealing with special allowances.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no provision for special allowances in this.

Dr. Browne

I bow to your ruling.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not anxious to limit the Deputy but I cannot see how he can bring it in.

Mr. Traynor

I am afraid I should plead guilty for perhaps being responsible initially for mentioning the fact that I was bringing in another Bill. I did not discuss it but I did suggest that I was bringing in another Bill which would deal with the subject the Deputy is talking about now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy will wait until we see that Bill and not anticipate it.

Dr. Browne

Naturally, I would not go against the ruling of the Chair butmy anxiety was to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there was grave dissatisfaction amongst many pensioners who have appealed under the enactments or who will appeal under this particular Bill for military service pensions and who find themselves subjected to inconvenience which it would be within the power of the Minister to eliminate. However, I hope we will have a further opportunity of dealing with the many complaints which I, at any rate, have received under this particular heading.

There is only one other point which arises. In reply to a question which I put down recently concerning applications for reconsideration of military service pensions under the 1949 Act the question of acknowledgments arose. I, and I think many other Deputies, were very surprised to hear that the Department had not continued the practice adopted by most other Departments of acknowledging applications received from pensioners.

Most people appear to be satisfied that the Minister under this Bill has done all that he possibly could have done under the existing circumstances and I join with the other Deputies in congratulating the Minister on giving this obvious justice to those men who earned it so very dearly in many cases.

Mr. Brennan

I join with the other Deputies in congratulating the Minister on bringing in this Bill which, I think, has surprised most Deputies in so far as it proposes to give increases better than most Deputies anticipated. Those of us who know the Minister's desire and anxiety over a number of years to do something for that section of the community who rendered service to this country, the Old I.R.A., were not so surprised that he went so far, under present circumstances, to satisfy their demands. As time goes on and as the legislators settle down to take a more generous view and more fully realise the importance of the work done by that Army, the Old I.R.A., we will from time to time get a more generous measure of unanimity and sympathy in improving the lot of these people. As has been pointed out by the various Deputies who have spoken,every year the number diminishes and anything that should be done would require to be done as soon as possible if these people are to receive the full measure of assistance which is justly due to them.

I agree with those who believe that a more generous increase should be given in respect of the lower rates of pension. I wonder if the Minister would yet see fit while the Bill is before the House to grant, say, 100 per cent. increase in the case of pensions up to £25 per annum? Many pensions would fall under that heading. An increase of £3 6s. 8d. seems rather insignificant, while regarded as a percentage it is a fairly generous increase. When one remembers that in some cases the pensions are as low as £6 13s. 4d. per annum one realises how small a 50 per cent. increase will be.

One of the things that I was particularly glad to see in the Bill was the extension of the time for submitting petitions and applications, particularly petitions. The Minister in his opening remarks seemed to express surprise that there are people who have not submitted petitions or applications. One of the reasons why people have delayed or refused up to the present to submit petitions is the fact that when they originally applied and were turned down, they were so disgusted that they refused to apply even for a medal or to make any further approach to the Military Service Pensions Board in respect of their service in the Old I.R.A. As time has gone on such people have come to realise that they should have submitted a petition and that as a result of the more generous outlook on the part of all sides of the House something worth while may be secured. The Minister will find that there are quite a few people who did not submit petitions under the 1949 Act and that there are quite a few who will come along now with petitions.

There was another reason for it which I will not mention because we desire to leave political matters aside as far as possible in this debate.

Many Deputies welcome the proposed removal of the abatement clause that was in the original legislation.While that does not affect members of the Old I.R.A. in Donegal as much as it would affect members in Dublin, where there are many such people in the public service, it affects us to some extent, and we welcome the proposed removal. There are quite a few people in Donegal who are applicants for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit, and I want to impress upon the Minister the importance of considering the claims of such people whose small pensions are held against them in applying the means test in respect of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. In connection with the removal of the abatement clause he might consider it wise on the Committee Stage to insert a section dealing with that type of case whereby the pensions of Old I.R.A. men would not be assessed in the means test when they apply for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. It would be of considerable help to many of these men throughout the country, particularly those who are in intermittent employment and have from time to time to seek assistance from the labour exchanges.

There is another very important section of the Old I.R.A. whose claims or grievances have not been referred to so far by any Deputy, and with whom I have the greatest sympathy. I refer to those who applied for pensions and were border-line cases and who failed to secure any award or recognition for their services. It would look as if those cases are closed for ever and that these people, many of whom claim to have given as good service as some of those in receipt of pensions, have no redress whatever. I would seriously urge the Minister to consider the cases of these men and at least allay their feeling of anxiety by making it known that their cases are not closed for ever.

I have frequently attended funerals and listened to volleys fired over the graves of such men by their comrades, men who had neither medals nor pensions. If these men had a record which justified their comrades turning out to accord them full militaryhonours, one would think they were entitled when alive to some recognition for the service they gave the country. The Minister should allay the feelings of the men I refer to by announcing that, as soon as circumstances permit, they will get a chance again to submit their cases to some tribunal or board which will consider their cases with a view to granting them some recognition for their services.

I do not propose to discuss the question of special allowances, but it was most encouraging that the Minister, in his opening statement, did point out that the special allowance will now be extended to persons other than those who received medals up to June, 1930, or whatever the date was. By doing so, he will bring in many of the people about whom I am speaking. Many of those people who failed to secure a military service pension have been awarded military service medals since the expiration of the period during which these military service medals carried a special allowance. By extending the time, I hope indefinitely, for the award of a special allowance to those awarded medals, provided that the holders of medals qualify in accordance with regulations laid down, the Minister will meet many of those cases I have referred to, but certainly not all of them.

There is another way by which the Minister can satisfy the claims of these people, and that is by giving definite instructions to various departments, and particularly to county councils, that priority should be given in the matter of employment to members of the Old I.R.A. I understand that some instructions to that effect were given to local authorities in the past.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is rather wide of the mark of this measure. The Deputy may raise it some other way but not on this measure.

Mr. Brennan

I am dealing with the omissions from the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not dealing with the omissions from the Bill in respect of military service pensions. Pensions and positions are two different things.

Mr. Brennan

I have no intention to try and get around the ruling of the Chair, but I thought that this was one of the things omitted from the Bill which would merit discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the Minister's Estimate.

Mr. Brennan

We shall have an opportunity of discussing it I hope before the Minister's Estimate because the regulation to which he referred in his opening speech I hope will come before the House before then, and that will give us the necessary opportunity. I should like to refer to the question of the smaller pensions to which other Deputies have already referred. The Minister should consider amending this Bill on the Committee Stage to permit of an increase of 100 per cent. in respect of pensions up to £25 per annum. That would not impose a very much greater strain on the financial resources of the country. If necessary, I am sure those who are in the higher categories would be prepared to sacrifice part of the increase proposed in order to help to bring the smaller pensions up to, say, £30 per annum. The Minister has gone further than most Deputies believed he would go, but I believe that in this latest step in the code of legislation dealing with the Old I.R.A. we have not seen the last of such measures.

I hope that this is but one step forward towards further advancement in the future and that the Minister, as time goes on, will see fit to look into every grievance of the Old I.R.A., with a view to bringing in legislation to remedy their grievances. Judging by our experience here to-day, it is obvious that the Minister in doing so will have the support of every Party. It was encouraging to listen to the speeches made by both Deputy Norton and Deputy S. Collins, but I could not help regretting, when listening to these speeches, that when other measures of a similar nature were before the House away back in 1949 and 1950 these Deputies did not make then the speeches they made here to-day.

Mr. Davin

I welcome this measure in so far as it is an improvement onthe existing military service pensions code. In many respects it is a considerable improvement. In particular, I welcome the decision of the Minister to wipe out through the medium of this measure that very objectionable section in the existing code dealing with abatement. I was surprised to learn from the Minister to-day that that section applies to such a small number of persons. I was under the impression that the number of persons affected by the abatement clause was far bigger than the number mentioned by the Minister.

The Bill is a considerable improvement in many respects. To-day the Minister is in a much more fortunate position than he or any of his predecessors ever were in the past when the discussion took place here on a motion moved by Deputy Keane. The Minister to-day received definite encouragement from all Parties to proceed along certain lines. When he comes to reply I would like to hear from him his reason for not taking the unanimous advice of the House in regard to the provision of a reasonable minimum pension for the gradually disappearing number of people who are concerned in these pensions.

I take it that every Deputy received a copy of the circular issued on 31st January by the United Conference of the Old I.R.A. Association. It seems to me, having listened to some of the speeches to-day, that all those who received the circular did not read it. Attempts were made to quote figures as to the number of persons in receipt of small allowances. Now, I know one of the signatories to the circular personally and I know that he has had considerable experience in this matter. I know that these people would not be disposed to exaggerate or underestimate figures in relation to the number of persons in receipt of pensions of £6 13s. 4d. per year. If the figures are wrong I have no doubt the Minister will correct them when he comes to reply because he has the correct figures at his disposal. In one section of the circular issued by that association it is asserted that five-sixths of all the pensioners receive less than £25 per year. Does anybody suggest that£25 per year, with money at its present value, is a justifiable sum for the declining number of people who are entitled to receive or are in receipt of military service pensions?

I do not know the exact number involved but it is a disgraceful state of affairs that these people should be in receipt of a niggardly sum of £6 13s. 4d. per year. It has been suggested on both sides of the House that the minimum pension payable in certain circumstances should be not less than £1 per week. I would like to hear the case against that. I advised the Minister, and he was advised by Deputies sitting behind him, not to take the advice of the financial experts of the Department of Finance.

I suggested that this was a question which should be taken up by the Taoiseach and his colleagues and on which a policy decision should be taken as to whether or not there was a good case for increasing the existing rates of pension. Having reached a decision, the Government should then issue its instructions to the Department of Finance and the other Departments concerned to prepare amending legislation along certain lines. I assume that has been done and that the limited amount of additional money now being made available is being made available as a result of the deliberate decision of the Government without interference from the hierarchy in the Department of Finance. I would like to think that is the position because that was undoubtedly the desire of every Deputy who encouraged the Minister here when the motion tabled by a private Deputy was under consideration on a former occasion.

This Bill is justified on many grounds. In particular, it is justified upon two grounds. The claim for a minimum pension of £1 per week is justified on two grounds. I am assuming that every member of this House is a decent, generous-minded Deputy in matters of this kind who would never attempt to justify, inside or outside the House, the payment of a pension of £6 13s. 4d. per year. That pension might have been defended in 1934.Compare the purchasing power of the £ to-day with its purchasing power in 1934 and one sees immediately that there is good cause, not alone for a 50 per cent. increase but for 100 per cent. increase on the miserable figure enshrined in the 1934 Act. Not alone has money depreciated in value but the cost of living has risen. The Minister must admit that. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in the cost of living and the Minister could to-day make a good case for an increase in pensions on the increase in the cost of living apart from other considerations.

I know the present Minister is a generous-minded man in matters of this kind. I believe he would have gone much further had he been allowed to do so by his colleagues. Deputy de Valera referred to financial stringency. Deputy Giles also referred to financial stringency. All that is so much cod and boloney as far as I am concerned. If the Government and the majority of the members of this House can see their way to allow hundreds of thousands of pounds to be given to the shareholders of our Irish banks by increasing interest charges by 1 per cent. I think the people responsible for the foundation of our State—the Old I.R.A.—are entitled to even more than they are getting under this measure.

Forget about financial stringency. The people who use that term do not understand its meaning. The only people who understand it are those who have been thrown out of employment as a result of the operations of the policy of alleged financial stringency. I think it is time we finished with that kind of talk.

The Minister to-day referred to pending legislation dealing with special allowances and other matters. I do not know why these matters are not included in this particular measure and I hope we shall not have to wait too long for the promised amending legislation. I daresay that the Minister is aware—I was astounded to discover it—that, as a result of the coming into operation of the social security scheme and the consequential increased allowance provided under the national health insurance, the special allowances payable to men unfit to take up any kind of work have been considerablyreduced since the beginning of this year. I do not go around looking for grievances. I get enough of them without looking for them. Last Sunday, in my constituency, a physically unfit man was presented to me whose special allowance was reduced from £58 to £45 10s. because he received a small additional increase in his national health payment. I hope the Minister's promised further amending legislation will rectify that injustice, an injustice of which I have proof here. I hope it will not alone rectify it but that these allowances will be increased instead of being reduced.

I do not want to go back—and I do not think any of us should, especially those of us who are a long time in this House—over the history of the Military Service Pensions Acts, dating from 1924. Goodness knows, sufficient time has elapsed, almost 30 years, to have this question settled to the satisfaction of the small percentage of our citizens who made such sacrifices, sufficient at any rate to enable us to sit here in this House. I never thought when I heard the Bill of 1924 brought in that I would be a member of this House in the year 1953 listening to and supporting further appeals for the men who should have been provided for properly in those days. I agree—and my name is on the records of this House as having spoken at that time—that it was an unfair measure and it was amended several times afterwards. Over a long period of years in this House I have advocated the provision of pensions for men who could prove active service in the I.R.A. and that all men who held the same rank and gave the same kind of service should get the same pension for their pre-Truce service, nothing beyond that. Our respected President has asked for unity, and rightly so, on a recent occasion when he was unveiling a monument somewhere in Limerick.

It is very hard to convince the person who got a pension of £6 13s. 4d. under the Act of 1932 that he was not unfairly treated compared to his colleague who was in the same section of the I.R.A., who had the same rank, who gave similar service and who hasa much higher pension under the Act of 1924. I advocate, for the sake of unity, the levelling up of all kinds of pensions. In that way we will give encouragement and satisfaction to many of the people who feel they have a grievance because of the differentiation as between the Acts of 1924 and 1932 and all the other amending Acts. You will give some inducement to those men who gave similar service in the same area and in the same circumstances to shake hands and forget the certain period that occurred in the history of this country following the acceptance and the adoption of the Treaty.

In conclusion, may I say that I know pretty well I am talking to the converted when I am talking to the Minister, and I am not going to take up any more time in connection with this matter. However, I would like to give a friendly warning to my colleague, Deputy Cowan. The only controversial note introduced in this discussion this evening, unnecessary in a discussion of this kind, was introduced by the lawyer Deputies who spoke. I say to Deputy Cowan, my old friend and past colleague, and to those others who think with him now, think differently from what they did a couple of years ago, that whatever was done or left undone by the inter-Party Government—or as some of them prefer to call it, the Coalition—with their approval, they should be prepared to justify and not disown it. They voted for everything that was done during the period they supported the inter-Party Government. I will give Deputy Cowan, who was a very active supporter of the inter-Party Government, and others credit for the fact that they tried to get other things done, but they have the same responsibility for the failure to get those things done as I have, and I have some responsibility.

I give the Minister the credit which is due to him for what he has done on this occasion, for everything that is contained in this measure, and I hope the further legislation that he indicated in his opening speech will rectify some of the wrongs and injustices under which persons now in receipt of disability pensions andspecial allowances have to suffer as a result of the coming into operation particularly of the social security measure.

Mr. O'Donnell

It seems strange that in the year 1953 we here are debating pensions for veterans who enabled us to sit here. It seems stranger still when we are told that some of those veterans who fought the might of an empire are being paid the magnificent pension of £6 10s. or £6 13s. per year. These veterans are dying out fast. Year by year they are dwindling away; week by week and month by month we hear of a funeral of some Old I.R.A. man. The cost to the State is becoming less and I would appeal to the House, in the name of justice, in the name of freedom and in the name of the men who fought and died for Ireland, to give some reasonable pension to the survivors of that struggle.

It is peculiar that Deputies on all sides of the House, and especially Deputies behind the Minister, have made appeals to the Minister to give a minimum pension of £1 per week to those I.R.A. veterans. Knowing the Minister as we do, we know that his heart and soul are with that appeal. What is holding back the award? What is holding back the implementation of the request made by Deputies on all sides of the House to give those men the remuneration, or at least part of it, to which they are entitled? I am afraid the previous speaker, Deputy Davin, has put his finger on it—the civil servant. It is time that we let the civil servant know we are the bosses in this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible to this House for the provision of that Bill, not the Civil Service, and the civil servant cannot be discussed on this.

Mr. O'Donnell

With the greatest respect I bow to the ruling of the Chair. If the Minister is responsible he will have respect for the appeals of his own Party. Every speaker belonging to the Party supporting the Minister has been in agreement thatthose veterans are entitled to a reasonable pension. We in this House are unanimous on that, and surely the Minister is not the only one out of step. If he is and if he agrees and listens to our appeal then I would ask him to amend this Bill on the Committee Stage. I have read the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924, 1934 and 1949, and there is one thing that strikes me about them—they are far too political. Too much attention is being paid to post-Truce and post-Treaty service and far too little attention is being paid to pre-Treaty and pre-Truce service. Under the 1924 Act, if you served in the National Army—or the Free State Army, as it was then known—you got certain privileges. Under the 1934 Act, if you served in the Republican Army—or the anti-Treaty forces, as they were known— you got certain privileges.

Mr. Traynor

No, that is not so.

Mr. O'Donnell

You were probably brought up to the level of the man who fought in the National Army. But there is no mention, or very little mention, of the men who fought from 1917-1921, or those who fought in that period and then decided that the civil war was a political racket and that it was time that they got out. Some of them, prior to the civil war and after the Treaty, went off to America. Some of them went to the colonies of Britain. I heard very little said on their behalf, although they are some of the men who bore the brunt of the fight. Far too much politics has entered into the Military Service Pensions Acts down through the years. No later than the other day in the public Press we read a series of articles by a former I.R.A. leader. They are uncontradicted statements, and as a result of what that gentleman said we learn now how leaders were selected in those days— in the beginning, particularly, they were not selected on merit but on what might be called the popular vote of the company.

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not seem to be relevant.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is most relevant, with the greatest respect, Sir. I saythat rank should not count in pre-Truce or pre-Treaty service, that all I.R.A. men who fought should be treated alike and should receive the same pension. I go further than that and say that it is the duty of the Minister for Defence to publish regularly a list of the names and addresses of pensioners and the amount of their pensions, to enable their former comrades to check on them and see if justice is being done.

I wish to go further than some of those who have appealed for a minimum pension of £1 a week. I say that any man entitled to a pension should get at least £100 a year. We give the old age pensioner 21/6, but what about the old soldier who fought for the State, who made the State exist? £6 13s. 6d. per year—surely it is time that that was revised once and for all, to give them something reasonable to live on. I understand that under former Acts if a person held an I.R.A. medal he became entitled in certain circumstances to a gratuity; and I understand that in recent times that gratuity has been wiped out. I would appeal to the Minister that any holder of an Old I.R.A. medal should, if his financial position merits it, receive a gratuity at least to enable him to get medical attention or tide him over difficulties. That is not asking too much. I would also appeal to the Minister to ensure that every person with at least three months' pre-Truce service will be entitled to an I.R.A. medal and automatically an I.R.A. pension.

Again, people from Donegal and from Deputy Flynn's constituency, South Kerry, have to travel here to Dublin, and these veterans have to bring witnesses to come before the board investigating their claims. Why are travelling vouchers not issued to them for that purpose? If an I.R.A. veteran in receipt of a pension is compelled to go to a hospital, why is a travelling voucher not provided for him? These are small matters, but they mean a lot to the man who is getting £6 13s. 6d. per year as a pension. They are things which deserve the Minister's consideration. Knowing him as I do, I know that he has sympathy with these unfortunates.Travel vouchers should be issued in these cases. Finally, I would appeal to him seriously to treat all pre-Truce I.R.A. pensioners the same and give them all the same pension, and give no pensioner less than £100 a year.

In conclusion, I would appeal to the Taoiseach, to the Minister and to the leaders of the Front Bench on this side, and the leaders of the bench on the Labour side, not to break faith with their comrades in arms of the Black and Tan war. They should think of them first, they should put them before Party politics, before the veterans of the civil war on both sides; and if that is done they will not be breaking faith with their own friends and comrades.

Mr. A. Byrne

I also welcome this Bill, but I cannot join in the congratulations to the extent that other members have joined. I thank the Minister for taking one step forward, but there are many more steps to be taken if justice is to be done to the Old I.R.A. men. Every Deputy, including those who gave praise to the Minister, has received a circular from the United Conference of Old I.R.A. Organisations, the Old I.R.A. Pensions Mansion House Committee. It is signed by James Brennan and M. Cremin, the honorary secretaries of the two bodies. They say:—

"The present Bill deals with military service pensions, and our committee were unanimous in expressing their grave dissatisfaction with it on two grounds.

The increases proposed are in all cases inadequate, and this is particularly true of the smaller pensions. Five-sixths of all pensioners receive less than £25 a year. Many of them have as little as £6 13s. 4d. This last group is to be awarded an increase amounting to 1/4 per week, and the vast——"

that is not my word—"vast"—it is the organisation's—

"majority of the pensioners will be granted increases almost equally worthless."

These representatives of the men askus to support a list of amendments they are sending out.

I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept some of these suggestions and see that a reasonable increase in pension is given to these people who are in receipt of that miserable allowance of £6 13s. 4d. per year. I know a man who served with the Minister, a man named Owen Meade—he gave me permission to mention his name on a previous occasion and I did so—who at one time had a pension of £90 per year for his services, and he must have given good service when he got that sum, but, as his children got small jobs, his pension was reduced until it was brought down to £9 or £10 per year. I do not know what it is now, but everyone will agree that it is totally inadequate, and that it is very shabby treatment of a man who served in 1916 with the Minister.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy is now talking about special allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne is getting away from the Bill.

Mr. Byrne

I thought I should state a definite case. I ask the Minister if he will inquire with regard to a number of women who served in those days. Some of these have very small pensions of £6, £8 and £10 per year and others in various places are in receipt of nothing, and I suggest that they are worthy of his consideration. One was a very prominent person in Dublin, and, while I am speaking of women of the Old Cumann na mBan and I.R.A., I might mention that to-day is the birthday of the late Countess Markievicz. I was reminded of that by a friend of hers who saw the question I had tabled to-day with regard to the memorial to her.

The recommendations put forward by these men are worthy of our consideration. I do not wish to read the whole document, but I think it unfair that their views are not read and recorded in our debates. I have given a few extracts and in another portion of the document they say:—

"Our committee are unanimous in agreeing that a pension awarded toanyone with proved service in the war for the establishment of the Republic should not be less than £50 a year and they are confident that it is within the competence of the Government to devise a scheme of graded increases based on such a minimum."

In other paragraphs, they set out various suggestions and wind up by submitting a series of amendments designed to meet their objections.

They are not satisfied with the Bill. The vast majority of them will get an increase of 1/4 per week and in the case of those who got £200 per year to buy their requirements, with the cost of living as it was at that period, that £200 is now reduced in value to £86 per year. The goods which they could buy with that sum in 1940 are now worth only £86. In view of the big increase in the cost of living and the reduction in the value of the money they got, I suggest that these provisions are worthy of reconsideration. A certain amount of thanks is due to the Minister for making the step forward, but many other steps are required before the people who served this country, and served it well, in days gone by will be satisfied.

Mr. Hilliard

It is very easy to speak in general terms on the question raised by this Bill. It is no trouble to any Deputy to talk in a general way about justice for the I.R.A. and to urge that the claims of the I.R.A. should be met. Many Deputies seem to have a confused idea as to the basis of entitlement to pension under the service pension code and the difference between service pensions and disability pensions which are generally known as Army pensions under the Army Pensions Acts, and in seeking to make a case for higher pensions under this measure, have cited cases which fall to be dealt with under the Army Pensions Act. The case is being made here that we should have a basic figure and that no man who is entitled to a pension should get any lesser sum. I cannot find any cause for that plea. Men who served in the I.R.A., who gave a certain type and class of service which meant much to them, in that itcreated difficulties for them in their careers, are entitled to a greater amount of compensation from the State than the person who barely qualified for a service certificate. The minimum upon which a service certificate is granted is that a person had what was termed some time ago as one major engagement and general service. That might not have involved his leaving his work or going away from home.

General MacEoin

One major engagement?

Mr. Hilliard

With general service added. The basic Act under which this pensions code is operated was passed in 1924 and, fortunately or unfortunately, it provided for payment on the basis of rank. The difficulty which faced the Administration which came to deal with pensions in 1934 was that fact. They had necessarily either to abolish ranks and the system of grading on ranks under which these men enjoyed their pensions, or introduce a similar provision in the 1934 Act. It is all very well to speak now of the abolition of ranks and the levelling up or down of the amount of pension a person should receive per year. If you proceed to interfere on these lines, there will be many protests made that we are breaking faith with men already in receipt of these pensions.

The basis of entitlement to a pension under the 1924 Act, as pointed out by Deputy O'Donnell, was service in the Defence Forces of the Provisional Government.

General MacEoin

No.

Mr. Hilliard

Plus his service in the I.R.A. The basis of entitlement to a pension under the 1934 Act was continuous service during the year 1920 or for the three months' period beginning in April 1921 to the 11th July.

General MacEoin

Does the Minister subscribe to that?

Mr. Hilliard

I would point out to Deputy O'Donnell that service with the I.R.A. during the civil war period was not, under any circumstances underthe 1934 Act or any other Military Service Pensions Act, a basis of entitlement to a service certificate and to a pension. The Act of 1949 passed by the previous Administration set out to deal with cases that were rejected under the previous Acts. During the passage of that Act through the House I pointed out that when a case was resubmitted to the Referee, and when he made his decision, the applicant had no further redress. I am making the plea now that when a case is resubmitted for further examination to the Referee, and when he arrives at his decision, if that decision is rejection, or a decision against the applicant, the Minister should give the usual notice notifying the applicant of the rejection of his claim, and give him whatever further facilities are necessary to submit any further evidence that he may desire to submit, so that the Referee can give further consideration to the case. I do not know what was the then intention or what the previous Minister had in his mind at the time the last Act was introduced, but I am making that plea now to the Minister.

There is a provision in paragraph (b) of Section 6 of this Bill in connection with the suspending provisions under which entitlement to a military service pension will not interfere to the detriment of the pensioner when he has some other specific claim against the State, but I notice that, in so far as the calculation of a man's means is concerned in regard to his claim for a special allowance, that provision does not operate. I make the plea now to the Minister that he should deal with that matter. The basis of entitlement to a medal is much less than that of entitlement to a pension. A person to obtain a medal has only to show to the satisfaction of the person dealing with the matter on behalf of the Minister that he had at least three months' continuous service before the Truce, but where a man obtains a military service certificate and a pension, he has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Referee or to the Board of Assessors that he had service of a certain character. When such a person comes to be dealt with under the special allowances section ofthe Army Pensions Act, I do not think that the service pension should be regarded as means in dealing with the case. I think that where the service pension is less than a certain specific amount—I would not care to go up to the higher grades of pension, but we shall take pensions, say, up to £150— and where a man has £150 or less as his service pension, that should not be reckoned as means when dealing with the special allowances case. In many cases men who served with the I.R.A. were not property owners and when they reach the age of 70, when they are in indifferent health and qualify before the Army Pensions Board, i.e., the Medical Board for special allowances, they would have nothing else to live on except the service pension and the special allowance. In my opinion service pensions up to the figure which I have mentioned should not be taken into consideration when dealing with the claims of these people for special allowances. I may be creating trouble for myself in making that plea because the Opposition, I know, are quite at liberty to put down an amendment dealing with it.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

They could not do it.

Mr. Hilliard

The Government or the Minister might oppose it. I do not know. I have not discussed the matter with anybody but I am putting it forward as a plea on my own behalf. I do not think that there is anything further I can usefully add to this debate. I am confining my remarks solely to the Bill before the House. I am not dealing with the provisions of the Army Pensions Act or the Disability Pensions Acts. We shall have the new Bill which has been announced by the Minister dealing with disability pensions later, and the questions that have been raised in connection with special allowances and disability pensions can be dealt with when that Bill comes before the House. I feel that this measure is a step in the right direction, that it is right and proper to increase the amount of pensions payable at the moment. I feel that the section dealing with the amendment ofSection 20 of the Act of 1934 and Section 8 of the Act of 1924 which abated the pensions of some Old I.R.A. men is long overdue. I do not know whether the Minister should not go further with the amendment of Section 20 of the Act of 1934. I refer to sub-sections (2) and (3) which are applicable to a small number of men who were employed in the Civil Service and other employments, and were still serving with the I.R.A. Even though they might be employed full-time in their offices during the day, they would be operating full-time during the night or for half the night with the I.R.A. So far as their option is concerned to claim their pension rights either from the Civil Service or from the I.R.A., I could not make up my mind on that matter, but I think a matter that should be considered is whether it is proper to deny a man the right to claim a pension under the two codes, to one of which he might be entitled as a servant of the State in the public service, and to the other of which he might be entitled for the time he devoted to active service in the I.R.A.

General MacEoin

I regret that the Minister is still persisting in dealing with this whole problem piecemeal. It is a pity that when a Bill like this is introduced, the Bill which should accompany it and which we are promised, is not brought in with it, so that we could have an opportunity of discussing both Bills together and see, as it were, where we were going. It is quite clear that some Deputies are not fully au faitwith all the aspects of the military service and disability pensions codes. Some of them become considerably confused. I am surprised at a Deputy like Deputy Hilliard who, I suppose, has more experience relating to the pensions code than anybody else in this House, he having been a member for a very considerable period of the Disability Pensions Board, in which he played a very honourable and noble part. Let me say that while he was a member of that board he acted in a judicious manner and gave everybody fair play to the best of his ability within the code. When, however, he asserts on this Bill that a person with one major engagement andgeneral service, qualifies for a pension, he is not correct. The truth is that the Referee decides that in one brigade area a stump of an engagement of any sort in general service will qualify. I take it that Deputy Hilliard was talking about Meath. In Meath and Leitrim one engagement will immediately render an applicant eligible for a military service pension. In Longford it takes two or three, on the grounds that there were so many engagements you should have been engaged in them all if you were active. That may be fair, but it is not the general rule. That is why I asked the Minister if he subscribed to the view put forward by Deputy Hilliard. Whatever it is I am not cavilling at that particular thing except to say that it does create difficulties for everybody. I know that the Leitrim Brigade applicants, with much less service than the Longford Brigade applicants, can qualify where the Longford people do not, since Longford was regarded as active. The same applies to Cork, Clare and Limerick. The people in those areas have to have more engagements than one. That is a certainty, and the engagements must be major ones.

Be that as it may I think that this Bill does not meet the requirements of anybody. It is true that it will be of considerable value and of great help to a number of people and for that reason I welcome it. To a person like the Minister, Deputy Hilliard, perhaps, or myself, £60 a year is a considerable lift. It is a fairly big sum of money to get. I cannot see how we are going to defend giving the Minister, Seán MacEoin or anybody else who has a military service pension £60 per year and giving to Johnnie So-and-So, who has one major engagement, as we are told, for general service £6 10s. per year to make his military service pension amount to the princely sum of £9 5s.

Therefore, I think that the Minister should have approached the problem as I would have approached it and established a minimum. There should be a minimum rate. I said until I was black in the face at various times that the minimum pension of the Black andTan who joined the R.I.C. on the 1st day of July, 1921 and who served in the Depot for 11 days to the Truce and was demobbed in November, 1921 was £52 per annum. He never fired a shot and never risked anything. At least the most insignificant member of the Forces should get the same recognition as he got. It was argued, of course, that Britain was a wealthy country and could pay but the truth of the matter is that nobody at any time in this House ever regarded the I.R.A. as being worthy of any recognition at all. Anything that was ever got for the I.R.A. was generally got through pressure. It was never given following on demands. I am not going to develop that point. I said that when the Minister was doing this it would no doubt increase the cost considerably but, as I said before, it is a diminishing cost. In ten years' time the roll call will be very low but it will be very high above as most of us will have passed on at that stage. Therefore, for the ten years that are left even at this late stage and since everybody in this House is willing to do the right thing, the Minister should not be dominated by the Department of Finance in the matter.

The Minister tells us that the cost of this Bill is £400,000. What of it? The dance-halls got that much of a remission of tax in the last Budget and there was nobody to kick about it, not even the Department of Finance.

Nobody can oppose this Bill. All we can do is to criticise it for what it lacks. I would ask the Minister to bring in the disability pensions code before the Committee Stage and let us see it. I appeal to him again at this late stage to remember the widows of the Old I.R.A. It is all very fine to say that we have the social welfare widows' pensions and everything else. I admit that, but to receive something because of service rendered by their husbands would be regarded as an honour by the widows. They should not be left as they have been in a number of cases. Unfortunately our members and comrades were not all wise men. They did not save much and did not make much provision for their widows and it often happens that when one of them dies a collection has to be made. I shall content myself withthanking the Minister for small mercies. I am glad that the abatement section which should never have been in the Bill was taken out. As I said before when that was going through this House there were very great difficulties and it was argued that persons in receipt of money from the State should not receive it from two sources at the same time.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. It was mentioned by Deputy Hilliard and I think it should be corrected. He said that under the 1924 Act regard was had mostly to National Army service. That is not true. There is no difference in the provision in the two Acts in that respect. Under both Acts you must have pre-Truce service. If you had not established pre-Truce service——

Mr. Hilliard

You have to have National Army service.

General MacEoin

Yes, you have to have National Army service but the qualifying thing was the pre-Truce service.

Mr. Hilliard

You had to have the other service as well.

General MacEoin

That is not the impression the Deputy put across. The way the Deputy put it to the House was——

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy was not in the House.

General MacEoin

——that if you had National Army service the other did not matter very much. That is not true. That is not correct. Under the administration of the 1924 Act and under the 1934 Act for a time the same definition of active service obtained— the amount of time that you gave or the amount of time that was lost, as it were. Under the 1934 Act the Referee—the late Judge O'Donnell, God rest him—interpreted a person on active service at one stage as a person who rendered dangerous or essential service, although that might not necessarily mean firing a shot. That lasted for a considerable time and then, suddenly, it was cut off. I only wantto establish that, in the 1924 Act, you had to have practically the same service as you had to have under the 1934 Act in order to qualify, that is, you had to have pre-Truce service. It is true that, to qualify, you had then to have the addition of National Army service, and when the 1934 Bill was introduced that same provision was there. That Bill was not amended in this House to that extent, but when it went to the Seanad the Minister introduced a provision that people with pre-Truce service only or members of Cumann na mBan should be included. I am not making a debating point of it. I want to clarify the position.

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy will appreciate that I was replying to Deputy O'Donnell.

General MacEoin

That is all right. We can argue it out afterwards. I think it would be better to do so outside rather than across the floor of the House. I should prefer to treat the matter objectively here. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but in my opinion it is not sufficient. The Minister should not have allowed himself to be put off. I admit that taxation is high. I admit that the cost is great and that it is very difficult to advocate increased expenditure on anything. When, however, the dance-hall proprietors could get £400,000 for nothing there is no reason in the world why that amount could not be got and doubled so that something decent could be done for the Old I.R.A. men who were comrades of the Minister as well as of some of the rest of us.

Mr. J. Flynn

I should like to compliment the Minister on this measure. The first point which I should like to make concerns the lower pension grade. If at all possible, I think there should be some increase for men already in receipt of pensions of, say, £30 or £20 a year and under. A 50 per cent. increase will not mean very much to men in that pension category. I am hoping that this Bill is only the forerunner of legislation which will provide further increases.

In his statement the Minister mentioned the introduction of legislation in regard to disability pensions and other matters. Like Deputy Hilliard, I should like to make the plea in regard to service pensions that the Minister would introduce a section enabling the applicant to make a final appeal, within 21 days, to the Minister as well as to the Referee.

The 1924 Act has been criticised, but it contains one good provision, and that is that the Referee could not decide a case on his own. Unless he got at least one member of the board to agree with him, he could not reject a claim. There is no such safeguard for the applicant in all the other Acts. On occasion, I have made representations to the Minister on behalf of people who were dissatisfied with decisions. I hope the Minister will do something about this matter. I blame the late Minister for Defence for not embodying such a provision in the 1949 Act. I was a member of the delegation which met the late Minister, and he assured us that such a provision would be incorporated in the Act so that the necessary safeguard would be there for the applicant—a safeguard similar to the one I mentioned in the 1924 Act. Unfortunately, the late Minister did not embody that provision in the Act for, if he had, I should not have occasion to stand up here, in company with other Deputies, and make the case that under the present Act and under the present Pensions Board our men have no redress. The decision of the Referee is final, and the Minister cannot intervene.

Without wishing to be disrespectful to any person and, in particular, the Referee, I may say that I gave evidence before that court in Killarney and that the Referee interrogated and adjudicated at the same time. He was the prosecutor and judge in the one instance and there was no fair play there. It would not happen in any other country in the world that a judge would interrupt a witness and his counsel and take the case completely out of his hands and decide against him. I witnessed such an event. That is why I am asking the Minister, in a last-minute effort, to insert that necessarysafeguard for the applicant in the legislation which he has said he proposes to introduce. As I have pointed out, that safeguard was contained in the 1924 Act, and if the Minister will incorporate it in legislation in the near future justice will be served and the applicant will have no complaint.

General MacEoin

Not if he interrogates him again. Get the set of rules published. Advocate that. There is a set of rules.

Mr. J. Flynn

I know. There is another point which I should like the Minister to consider when he is introducing legislation, and it is that the statements of Old I.R.A. officers who give evidence in these cases will be accepted and regarded as first-class evidence, and that no matter what has gone before in court or in any other place, or on the files, the Minister will give credit and first consideration to the testimony of these officers— brigade, battalion and so forth.

With other Deputies, I have been approached by the organisation representing these men. They have asked us to make representations to the Minister to the effect that, if at all possible in the near future, when legislation is being discussed or introduced, the Minister will have regared to that important point and accept that important principle.

On behalf of the men and the people in Kerry whom I represent, I wish to thank the Minister sincerely for his courage in introducing this legislation which has long been overdue. I would point out that some people who may criticise the measure and say that sufficient is not being done forgot all about this matter when they themselves were in office. I would reply to Deputy MacEoin, who tried to put one over on Deputy Hilliard in regard to the 1924 Act, by saying that that was clearly an Act for National Army men. As far as I am aware, no man in Kerry got a pension under that Act unless he was in the Army.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Or anywhere else.

Mr. J. Flynn

It was a one-sided measure. It was typical of the treatmentof I.R.A. men in this country. There was too much politics in it. But who started that? The Fine Gael Party started it themselves in 1924. There is no doubt about that. There is no good in going back on it, but it is the truth. In conclusion, I hope, for the sake of unity and of all the men concerned, irrespective of what politics they have at the moment, that we will all try and see that they will get justice under the present administration.

Mr. Burke

I want to thank the Minister and congratulate him on making a good effort under this Bill to do something for the Old I.R.A. The Minister has succeeded, during his time as Minister for Defence, in doing a good deal for the Old I.R.A. I must thank him publicly in this House for the sympathetic hearing which he gave to numerous deputations of Old I.R.A. men that I brought to see him, off and on, over a long number of years, and for all he did to try and improve their lot. Times are changing and we have to change with them. What I mean is, that the men concerned are getting older. As each year goes by, there will be fewer Old I.R.A. men. Every year will bring its toll. More of the Old I.R.A. men will be going to their eternal reward.

In speaking here, I should not like to think that the old soldiers of Ireland would be made the subject of political debate. I feel that I am speaking to the most sympathetic Minister for Defence that the Old I.R.A. have ever had, and that if it were within his power he would like to settle this question once and for all. Unfortunately, the position we find in this House is that finance seems to interfere with a lot of decisions on many matters in this regard. I am sure that the Minister himself would like to see that every Old I.R.A. man who struck a blow for Ireland would, at least, be sufficiently compensated by this State, and that this question we are discussing was settled once and for all.

I have been associated with a number of Old I.R.A. organisations, and I am certainly in favour of thetrend of thought which has found expressions here that there should be a minimum pension for all those men if that were possible. I am not going to press the Minister too hard on that, because I feel that he has made an effort to do something right in this Bill. I should like, however, to see that position brought about, if it were possible—that there would be a minimum pension. I, with a number of other Deputies on all sides of the House, feel that a 50 per cent. increase on a small pension is very little. In weighing up this matter, we have, of course, to take into consideration the number of border-line cases there are of Old I.R.A. men who have been turned down by the Pensions Board. We have listened to their grievances from time to time, and we are up against the position here that we have to ask ourselves what is best to be done in those cases.

If it were possible to meet the expenditure involved, I would like to see the minimum substantially raised, notwithstanding the fact that the present Minister introduced the Military Service Pensions Act of 1945 under which he brought in the special allowance. That proved to be a godsend to a great number of Old I.R.A. men. I know that any man who is in bad circumstances can, at least, take advantage of that special allowance. Nevertheless, I would like if the Minister could, on the Committee Stage, see his way to increase the minimum allowance substantially above what it is at present. I welcome the abatement clause because that was long overdue. In the case of men outside in commercial life with big salaries, or members of the Civil Service or of local authorities, or T.D.s, the pension was substantially reduced. That was only fair.

I am also concerned with the position of the widows and orphans of Old I.R.A. men. It has been raised by other Deputies, and I should like the Minister to go into it. There is another point I want to raise. It has been put to me at a conference that I had with a committee representing men employed by a local authority or in the Civil Service. This committee says:—

"Our committee welcome the abolition of those unjust sections of previous Acts which penalised Old I.R.A. who are civil servants or local government employees by providing that their military service pensions should be subject to deduction or even total suspension. But they note that sections are deliberately retained in this Bill which will compel civil servants or local government employees, on retirement, to surrender for the computation of their superannuation allowance, the years for which they were granted a military service pension. This appears quite indefensible."

These are other points that I would like the Minister to consider. In these cases, while a man is in the Service he can draw the pension fully, now that the abatement clause is gone, but when he retires his position will be different. In view of the fact that, after a few more years there will be very few Old I.R.A. men left, I think we should try, during our time at least, to see, if it is possible at all, that they will be dealt with honourably and justly. I have no doubt that the present Minister for Defence will do that. Again, I wish to thank him very sincerely for the great contribution that he is making in this Bill. I know it is hard for him to do everything that he would desire to do, but at least he has made an honest to God contribution towards the solution of this problem. We have felt for a very long time that something should be done about it—that is, an increase in Old I.R.A. pensions.

Mr. Allen

The Bill introduced by the Minister is generally welcomed by Old I.R.A. men all over the country irrespective of whether they are in receipt of the smaller allowance or the higher allowance that Deputy MacEoin mentioned. Deputy MacEoin might also have adverted to the fact that it was the original Act giving pensions to Old I.R.A. men, the 1924 Act, that set the difference between ranks, officers and men. It was unfortunate, and I always thought so afterwards, that there was any standard set as between one man and another in the Old I.R.A. The same basis had necessarily to befollowed in the 1934 Act. It may be said that two wrongs do not make a right but there was scarcely any option but to follow the same lines in the 1934 Act. The view has often been expressed since, that had there been a flat rate basis all the problems that arose in the interval would not have arisen. I do not know if it is too late to go back now but if Deputy MacEoin would lead a campaign in that direction he would get fair support. There would be a levelling down in addition to a bit of levelling up and you would reach a flat rate basis then with the moneys that the Minister is prepared to provide under this Act.

General MacEoin

The Deputy did not mention "flat rate". He mentioned the minimum.

Mr. Allen

I would be one of those who would support anybody in asking the Minister to accept such a proposal. It is generally accepted by the House and all sides of it. I suggest that Deputy MacEoin is the one to lead off on that, not for any personal reasons but, if he gave a lead in that matter, representing the other side of the House, it would be welcomed, I am sure, by all the Old I.R.A. men.

The proposals in this Bill will step up considerably the rate of pensions in the case of higher pensions. The increase will be only a bagatelle in the case of lower pensions. It is a wonder that some estimate has not been made before now as to the cost of commuting small pensions, the big majority of which are under £25 a year, giving the person in receipt of, say, £20 or £25 a year, 20 years' pension, or some such number of years' pension. It would be of some advantage to them in their lifetime. It would mean that they would have a lump sum which they could invest in something worth while that would give a better return than the small pension per annum would give. I make that suggestion. At some time in the future the Minister should consider that. I believe it would be found in the long run to give better results to those Old I.R.A. men about whom we are all concerned.

The removal of the abatement clause in respect of persons in receipt ofmoneys from the public services is welcome and is long overdue. An effort was made in the early 1940's and the amount abated was reduced. The clause is now done away with, not before its time. It should never have been in operation.

With regard to the operation of the Military Service Pensions Act, several efforts have been made—the latest was the 1949 Act—to try to provide a solution to the problem of the many thousands who were left out and who could not or did not qualify under the 1934 Act or the 1924 Act. The 1949 Act gave satisfaction up to a point but, as time goes on, we find that of those who go before the board the majority are not satisfied to-day any more than they were ten or 15 years ago that they are getting fair play. I am not saying that they are not getting fair play. Those applicants who were unfortunate up to now and who are appearing at the present time or who have appeared quite recently before that board are generally dissatisfied.

Evidence has been given by responsible officers that it was believed and that there was evidence that showed that those applicants for service certificates measured up to the standard that should qualify them for a service certificate. There is general dissatisfaction. I would support the suggestion of Deputy Flynn that even at this stage the Minister should amend the Act, if it is necessary to amend it— probably it could be done by regulation —by providing that at least one member of the board, if not two, should support the Referee in his decision. We hear of arbitrary decisions and of the Referee refusing to hear some of the evidence tendered. If that is so, there is bound to be more and more dissatisfaction.

It is claimed that there is still a hard core of 15,000 to 17,000 men who appealed under the 1949 Act for rehearing and that the majority of those are being turned down, that the percentage getting through is very small at the present day.

Up to 50 per cent. of the Old I.R.A.men of 1920 and 1921 have gone to a better world. Fifty per cent. of those who gave service in that period have gone off the pension list if they were ever on it and want a pension no more. There are about 15,000 to 17,000 left. The Minister has a big responsibility towards that 15,000 to 17,000. If they can prove, through any number of responsible officers, whether one, two or three of a brigade or battalion, that they gave service measuring up to a certain standard, active service of whatever type it may have been, that they were essential units and gave service as active units of their brigade or battalion or whatever it may have been, in the year 1920 or 1921, they should get a service certificate. It has often occurred to me that if provision were made either in the regulations or in the Act or by amendment to the Act that where a number of responsible officers were prepared to prove that any individual in the company or battalion had given certain service, that individual should, without question, get a service certificate.

There should be a flat rate gratuity to cover the whole of those who are left who can prove service. That, in my opinion, is the only solution to this problem. Otherwise, it will be coming up here year after year and there will be dissatisfaction on the part of quite a large number of men who honestly believe that they are entitled to a military service certificate. Any Minister who will come in here and provide a ready-made solution of that will have the blessing of a great number of people throughout the country.

I hope the Minister will advert to the fact at this stage that satisfaction has not been received by that considerable group of Old I.R.A. men who are still to be dealt with and that, if necessary, the rules under which the Referee and the board act will be changed. We have always been led to believe that the interpretation of these rules governed the whole determination of whether a man qualified or not in many cases. As time goes on and as the cases become more difficult to decide, I do not think the rules should be as rigid as might have been necessary earlier on. I think the Minister should bring in some amendments tothis Bill in Committee. Under the 1934 Act, I think, the Referee was given powers which he had not under the 1924 Act. Under the 1924 Act a member of the board, in addition to the Referee, I believe, had a right to decide whether a man should be rejected or get a certificate. I think that such a system is essential at this stage. From what I can hear from those who have gone before the pensions board in the last couple of years something like that is necessary. Otherwise you will have contention and dissatisfaction right through the country amongst small units of the best citizens this nation has known in this generation. The Minister should provide some means to enable the 15,000 remaining cases to be dealt with and justice given to these men which they feel, rightly or wrongly, is being withheld from them under the present code.

Mr. McGrath

I should like to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill, which is long overdue. Even though it does not go as far as we would wish, especially in regard to people in receipt of small pensions, it is certainly a big improvement on the previous Military Service Acts. I think the waiving of the abatement of pensions was very badly needed. That matter was a source of great grievance since the first Pensions Act was brought in. It was very unjust that, because a person was working for a local authority or a Government Department, portion of his pension should be abated while people earning far bigger salaries from private employers and in professional positions suffered no abatement at all. That is one long-standing grievance which has been wiped out by this Bill.

Like other Deputies, I think that there should have been some fixed minimum pension, but I suppose the usual financial aspect overruled everything else. When this Government tried to get finance for very deserving objects we have seen the criticism they suffered from the people on the opposite side of the House. I hope that they realise that they are in part responsible for the small I.R.A. pensions.

I would ask the Minister to do something about speeding up the decisions in cases. It is over 30 years since the service was rendered for which people are now looking for pensions, and although a new Act was introduced in 1949, a great many of the cases have not yet been dealt with. Deputies have commented on the fact that each year the number of Old I.R.A. men is getting fewer and fewer, and therefore it is all the more necessary that decisions should be speeded up. We have heard complaints about the board. I personally believe that if the time is to be extended again for the reception of applications we should definitely have more than one board to deal with them. The period of life for many Old I.R.A. men cannot be very long. I heard someone saying that pensions should be commuted by giving a sum amounting to 20 years' pension.

General MacEoin

That was an optimist.

Mr. McGrath

I think so. I think it would be good value anyway. I would impress on the Minister that whatever cases are outstanding should be dealt with within 12 months at the latest. This is the year 1953 and the last Act was brought in in 1949 and there are a great many cases still waiting. I was also glad to hear from the Minister that he is bringing in a Bill to deal with people in receipt of special allowances. I am sorry he did not bring in that Bill first because these are the people most in need of it, and indeed very badly in need of it. When the 1946 Bill was introduced it made more people happy than most Deputies realise. When the last Social Welfare Bill was introduced and people were allowed to draw their full old age pensions and the special allowances were not taken into account as means I know that in the City of Cork anyway it was a very substantial benefit to those people who were in receipt of old age pensions and blind pensions. Those who have not reached the age of 70 find it difficult to live on the present special allowance and I hope the Minister will not delay very long in bringing in that Bill. When he brings inthat Bill, I hope he will do away with the 12-months' period before a decision can be reversed. When a decision is given by those dealing with the special allowances there is no appeal for 12 months even though the decision was entirely wrong. I hope that that period will be made as short as possible. I appeal to the Minister to set up a couple of extra boards if necessary to deal with these cases and get rid of them once and for all.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I agree with the last speaker and with Deputy MacEoin that it would have been far better and it would have been easier for us to discuss in this House the position of the Old I.R.A. men if the Minister had introduced an amending Bill with regard to disability pensions and special allowances, because in dealing with our constituents we find that a big number of people who are in receipt of military service pensions are also in receipt of special allowances or disability pensions in some form or another. But, inasmuch as the Bill deals only with military service pensions, our remarks must be confined to that aspect of the matter rather than the other two aspects which I mentioned.

Whilst many speakers have described the Old I.R.A. and its activities from about 1914 to 1921, the type of people who composed that organisation and the activities in which they engaged, and have criticised in different terms the treatment that has been meted out to them, I think it would be well at this point to remind ourselves of what the martyred leaders in 1916 thought about these men and of what they said about them.

We still have here with us a number of cynics who are both sarcastic and ironical in their remarks about the Old I.R.A. and the "Young I.R.A." and who are very sarcastic and cynical about the treatment meted out to them by the last Government, by the Cumann Fáil Government and by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Listening to some of these cynics, one would think that practically every man in receipt of a military service or an OldI.R.A. pension is in receipt of a big fat pension. It may come as a shock—I think a necessary shock—to these people to learn that five-sixths of the people in receipt of these pensions receive only £25 per year or under. That should give the lie to those people who are wont to say: "If they did anything for their country they are being paid well for it."

Our criticism here is that they have not been adequately compensated. It is our function here to impress upon the Minister and get him to impress upon his colleagues that in relation to the men who made sacrifices in the period from 1916 to 1921 there should be an extra effort now in 1953 to try to satisfy once and for all most of the grievances that have been ventilated by the different associations speaking on behalf of the Old I.R.A. and on behalf of those who gave service from 1916 right up to 1921. I do not think any of us could quibble with or take exception to the manner in which these different associations have presented their case time after time to this Government, to the last Government, to the Fianna Fáil Government and to the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. They have been most moderate in their language. In none of their submissions has there been any attempt at threats. Their demands are reasoned and reasonable.

I propose to quote now a statement made by the Commander-in-Chief in 1916 when referring to his colleagues in that glorious struggle. When he signed the unconditional surrender in Easter Week he said:—

"I desire now, lest I may not have an opportunity later"

unfortunately he did not have an opportunity later——

"to pay homage to the gallantry of the soldiers of Irish Freedom who have during the past four days been writing with fire and steel the most glorious chapter in the later history of Ireland. Justice can never be done to their heroism, to their gay and unconquered spirit in the midst of peril and death.

Let me who have led them into this, speak in my own and in my fellow-commanders' names, and inthe name of Ireland present and to come, their praise, and ask those who come after them to remember them."

I do not throw that in the face of Deputy Traynor, Minister for Defence. Neither do I throw it in the faces of Deputy MacEoin or Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, two former Ministers for Defence. I do not throw it in the face of any man who occupied that position. I throw that statement of Padraic Pearse in the face of every single member of this House. I throw it in the face of every single member of this State. I submit that we have not done justice to the Old I.R.A. It is almost incredible to conceive that there are men who took that most unpopular stand in 1916 especially, men from the City of Dublin, from my own County of Wexford, from Cork and Galway, some of whom made the supreme sacrifice and all of whom risked death. Yet, the meagre pension this country can afford to offer to those who survived is the niggardly sum of £25 per year. That should sink in to the minds of the cynics amongst us to-day. It should sink into the mind and heart of every person who quibbles at the provision of money in order that a little more adequate compensation may be given, especially to those who find themselves in straitened circumstances to-day, for the heroic sacrifices they made at that particular time.

Deputy MacEoin told us this evening that the scorned Black and Tan who served from July to November in one particular year has a minimum pension from his Government of £52 per year for coming over here to butcher, to bully and generally commit acts of atrocity. I think it is high time we corrected the present situation. I think it is high time we made yet one more attempt to try to satisfy the demands of those people who served their country in those particular years. It amazes us to discover that more than five-sixths of the pensions awarded are less than £25 per annum. There are quite a number as low as £6 13s. 4d. per annum. Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Hilliard made very sensible and enlightening speeches. Deputy Hilliard told us this evening that as far as County Meathis concerned an applicant for a pension must fulfil a minimum requirement of one major engagement and general service in the I.R.A. As far as Longford and Leitrim are concerned, the minimum requirement, according to Deputy MacEoin, is two or three major engagements and a certain length of service in the I.R.A. A major engagement means to all of us an engagement in which a man definitely risks his life. The compensation that this country offers to such a person is, in some instances, £6 13s. 4d. per year. Yet we have people who would lead one to believe that those who served in the I.R.A. are to-day in receipt of big, fat pensions.

It is a pity that the Disability Pensions Bill and the Special Allowances Bill have not been amended simultaneously with the Military Service Pensions Act. There are many people who are in receipt of military service pensions who also come under the provisions of the Special Allowances Act.

In recent times some of those people have been treated very shabbily. I give one instance of a man in my constituency who is in receipt of a military service pension, who also had a special allowance—I think it was about £40 or £50 per year. He also drew national health insurance by reason of the fact that he was absolutely incapable of work. This man's wife was very ill and she was ordered by the doctor to take pills or tablets which would cost around 15/- per week. She decided she could not get them. He had a son in the British Army who was making her an allowance of 5/- a week. That, incidentally, was noted down in the assessment by the Department of Defence. The son volunteered to pay her 10/- extra a week to enable her to get the tablets for 15/-. Because he did that the Minister of whoever is responsible in the Department of Defence took into consideration that extra 10/- that was given by her son in England and as a consequence of that the special allowance was cut down drastically.

I would like also to point out to the Minister—I did it some weeks before Christmas as well—that the Department of Defence has saved thousandsof pounds on the operation of the recent Social Welfare Act, and it must be known to every single Deputy in this House that these pensioners who are also in receipt of special allowances found that when their national health insurance was raised from 22/6 a week to £2 10s. a week their special allowance was cut drastically. I can quote a case of a man whose national health insurance was increased to £2 10s. and who had a special allowance decreased to the extent of £49.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is travelling far from this measure.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I am merely quoting examples of Old I.R.A. men who are in receipt of military service pensions but who were also receiving special allowances.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing the special allowances side.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I will not pursue that. I merely want to point out to the House the plight in which many of these men find themselves at the present time.

Mr. Davin

Deputy McGrath did not know that.

Mr. McGrath

I might be more intimate with the circumstances of Old I.R.A. men than Deputy Davin.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corish on the Bill.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

There is another long-standing grievance held by the Old I.R.A. men. It is not for me to flog it out here to-night any more than it has been flogged. It is the question of active service. Just to give an example of the opinions or the ideas that run through the minds of these Old I.R.A. men I refer to a letter which was written to me by a man from County Carlow. He writes of active service. He gives an example of a group of ten men who went cut to blow up a bridge or do some other destruction.

Mr. Briscoe

Call it an act of war, not destruction.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Some act of war, as Deputy Briscoe says. Ten of them went out to aid them in the task of doing this act of war which, incidentally, was destruction.

Mr. McGrath

Do not compare it to the spilling of milk.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Two of them were to patrol the roads armed with rifles. These two men had an engagement, maybe they had not; at least they were required to shoot or were fired upon, but the eight men who left themselves open to the risk unarmed were regarded as being ineligible for a pension at all. Active service is something on which the Minister has been asked to give an opinion or to define. His predecessor was asked to do it. The Minister for Defence before him was asked to do it, but there has not yet been from a Minister for Defence, in my time at least, any opinion, good, bad or indifferent, as to what active service should be. It always seems to be a question of "passing the buck" by the various Ministers to the Referee or to the Military Service Pensions Board for them to determine what active service would mean in certain circumstances.

The Minister is doing good on this occasion. The Minister before him did good. When the present Minister, Deputy Traynor, was Minister from 1932 to 1948 he made improvements. Every Minister of State in every Department since 1922 has made some improvements. We are never satisfied. That is our job as Deputies, never to be satisfied and to ask for more and more improvements all the time. Whilst, as I say, the Minister has gone a certain distance in this particular Bill, I think that here, in the year 1953, when we can raise money for so many different things, when we can, as Deputy MacEoin says, remit taxes to the extent of £400,000 in respect of dance halls, surely we can do something similar or devote that money to Old I.R.A. men. Surely if we could in the last Budget impose a tax and give to the cigarette or tobacco manufacturers of this country over £1,000,000, we could afford to give some of it or all of it——

Mr. Briscoe

You are spoiling a good case by making it controversial like that.

Mr. McGrath

He is playing politics.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

If the Minister is to get up in another ten minutes' time he will say: "Deputies, I would like to give members of the Old I.R.A. three times what is proposed in this Bill, but if I introduce it and the Minister for Finance introduces certain proposals to raise the money you in the Opposition will object."

Mr. Briscoe

Not if we get unanimity here.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

You would get, I am sure, every single member to vote for the reimposition of the dance-hall tax.

Mr. Briscoe

That is killing it again.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

It may be killing because it is sore.

Mr. McGrath

He is only playing politics now.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I am sure that all my Party and all of the Opposition will vote in connection with the next Budget, if Deputy MacEntee is there to present it, for the reimposition of the dance tax to give the proceeds to Old I.R.A. men. I do not know whether that spoils the case as far as Deputy Briscoe is concerned but it is a concrete proposal, break it up whatever way you like.

Mr. McGrath

We know what you did for three years.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Every person in the country is fed up listening to people on that side saying: "We know what you did in three and a half years", or people on this side saying: "We know what you did in 16 years." This is 1953 and we are entitled to ask the Minister and the present Government to do certain things and there is nothing to be gained either from the point of view of Fianna Fáil or any Party in the Opposition in talking about 1948, the economic war, the Treaty or going back to 1798. Thereis no point in talking about that. The duty and obligation on this House, and especially on the Government, is to try to correct and improve the situation that we find in the year 1953.

My last plea would be a similar one to that of Deputy McGrath, namely, for the widows of the pensioners. There are many such widows in the country who were to some extent dependent on the pensions of which their husbands were in receipt. The Minister should consider especially those widows who, when their husbands died, found themselves in very bad circumstances. I know many cases which I could name and I am sure the Minister knows some, too. Perhaps on the Committee Stage he could see his way to make some sort of provision for them—whether for a full pension, a 75 or 50 per cent. pension is another thing. He should do something for them. Many of the older Deputies know—I cannot say I do, as I was not alive in 1916—that the wives of these I.R.A. men underwent many grave hardships when their husbands were on the run or engaged in certain activities in that troubled period. I would suggest that between this and the Committee Stage the Minister might explore the possibility of doing something for the widows of Old I.R.A. pensioners.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I would like to join with other Deputies in paying tribute to the Minister for the introduction of this Bill. As one who, over all the years, has been interested in improving the treatment of the Old I.R.A., I certainly welcome the Bill. Everyone interested in the I.R.A. must pay a tribute to the Minister for Defence for this Bill. It is a great source of satisfaction to me and, I am sure, to all members of the Old I.R.A. throughout the country, to find this House unanimous in its anxiety to do whatever can be done for the Old I.R.A.

As Deputy Mac Fheórais said just now, long enough there were cynics who thought that the Old I.R.A. were receiving some very special treatment. I hope the information now disclosed will finish all criticism from suchpeople. It is true that all Governments have attempted to improve the lot of the Old I.R.A. man. Circumstances obtaining at different times led different Governments to consider that they were doing whatever could be done at the particular time; and so, as time goes on, we have one Government after another improving the position in some respect. Of course, in the meantime, we have some Old I.R.A. men passing to their eternal reward much too quickly indeed. That very fact alone certainly means that some money is saved to the Department, and I hold that whatever is left in the Department of Defence each year should be allocated to the remainder for the few short years that they will be with us. On that, again, the effort of the present Minister is a very creditable one. This Bill before us removes a few very old sores that we have been very worried about over the years. Whilst it does not go as far as we would like it to go, especially regarding the smaller pensions, the abolition of the abatement clause undoubtedly means a very big thing for many people. It removes a great injustice that has been perpetrated on the Old I.R.A. since 1924. Surely no one will find fault with the removal of such a long-standing grievance.

The extension of the time for applications, both for medals and for pensions, is very welcome indeed. It may seem rather strange that, so many years after the passing of the Pensions Acts, there may still be persons here at home or scattered throughout the world who have not yet applied; but it has been proved year after year that such is the case. I am one of those who believe that the time for application for a military service pension should never be closed to those entitled to it.

As one with some experience of the working of the Military Service Pensions Acts since 1924, I do not believe that any board could do any more, beyond carrying out the terms of reference. It is true that there are several ways of doing a job like that, but when we come down to brass tacksthe board is bound by its terms of reference and its rules. I know that it is up to the Minister and the Government to change those rules, if necessary; but, such as the rules are, I feel that this board is doing a very difficult job well.

Under all the different Acts and under the various boards there has been dissatisfaction and disappointment and I expect that, human nature being what it is, there always will be dissatisfaction and disappointment where persons make application for something like that, expect to receive it and fail to receive it. Having experience of the different boards, I am satisfied they all have done a very difficult job within their terms of reference. Until the board's hands are strengthened in that respect, we should not wrong them by making statements that they could do something that they have not got the power to do

The suggestion made by the Lord Mayor of Cork, Deputy McGrath, is an excellent one—that, instead of permitting one board to sit for a long period of years, it may be possible to have another board set up to examine those applications. That would give the Old I.R.A. some hope that these applications would be dealt with in our time. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.