Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jul 1953

Vol. 141 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1953—Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

On the section, I should like to make a plea to the Minister that he should extend the scope of it to embrace the widows of persons who are in receipt of service pensions or of persons who are in receipt of either special allowances or disability pensions. I regard the Bill, on the whole, as being pretty generous. As far as I am concerned, it is more generous than I had anticipated. One can appreciate the many difficulties the Minister had in bringing it in, but at the same time I would make a plea to him to extend this section to include the payment of pension or allowances to the widows of pensioners, irrespective of the date the latter died.

All of us appreciate the fact that those who were in receipt of pensions, special or disability allowances did trojan work for this country during what we now describe as the troubled times. We must also appreciate the fact that, in many cases, their wives also did trojan work for the country. They suffered a great deal during the troubled period from 1916 to 1922. They engaged in activities which were publicly recognised. Many of us cancall to mind examples of that type of widow. I think that, if the Minister could be persuaded to do what I suggest, he would not only be showing a recognition of the services which were rendered by the husbands of these widows, but also a recognition of the part which they themselves undoubtedly played in the struggle of that time.

With regard to all the amendments to this section standing in the name of Deputy MacEoin, are they also being ruled out of order?

Yes. They are being ruled out on the grounds that they would impose a charge.

I did not think myself that any of them would result in any increased charge but that possibly there might have to be a variation of the charge, apart altogther from an increase.

Was it not obvious that they could not be moved?

Their acceptance would widen the classes of persons who would become entitled to benefit under the Bill.

I am afraid that decision is going to bring us all back to a difficulty which most of us feel is there. We all appreciate the efforts which the Minister has made in this Bill. Yet, I think we feel that this decision will only lead to further complications. I think it would be well, in the interests of the Bill itself, that the Minister might consider, between now and the taking of the Bill in the Seanad, widening its scope. Otherwise it is only going to lead to a succession of individual hardship cases being brought forward. It is going to lead to a continuation of the inevitable trek of Deputies interested to the Minister or his successor in the hope of getting these hardship cases ameliorated. We all know that there are such cases. Even though the amendments have been ruled out, the Minister, I think, might give consideration to the spirit in which they were put down. It was to facilitate dealingwith these cases generally while at the same time trying to exclude, as far as humanly possible, differentiations and distinctions which might lead to hardship in certain types of cases.

I am sure that the Minister is more than sympathetic to the type of appeal that has been made to him by Deputy Corish. We are all aware that many of those who made contributions to the struggle for liberty are unhonoured and unsung, and that a marathon part in that effort was played by many unnamed wives or other collaborators of those who fought at that time.

I appreciate, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, the difficulty which the Minister found himself in apropos of a situation of economic stringency. I am urging this view on the House in the spirit of unanimity that prevails here in relation to all the people who made sacrifices to win for us the liberty that we now enjoy. It is in that spirit that we should try to make the Bill wide enough in scope and generous enough in conception to give some rest to the unending quest of various organisations to the Minister to amend some special section of an Act so that it might embrace other cases.

The Minister, I am sure, will appreciate that Deputy MacEoin, in putting down these amendments, did so in the spirit of one who has been very intimately associated with the different type of case in respect of which pleas have from time to time been made to various Ministers. We have no desire to impede in any way the progress of this Bill. We are prepared to give the Minister the co-operation that is required to expedite its passage through the House, but at the same time we would appeal to him to endeavour to widen its scope at some stage in the Seanad so as to ensure that no specific statutory date or no circumstances which might be described as fortuitous or gratuitous, would operate to prevent a worthy person from reaping some benefit under it.

Unless the Bill is made completely comprehensive the Minister can say to me that there will be cases where a line of demarcation will weigh heavilyagainst someone. My own feeling on the matter may be generally summarised in this way: that, even if we were to err on the side of generosity, most of us in this House, in dealing with this particular class or section of the community, would prefer that our sin was one of generosity rather than of differentiation or niggardliness. As regards the type of person affected by Section 3, I would urge the Minister, despite the fact that these amendments have been ruled out, to consider the position of all people affected by this type of legislation, and to appreciate, as he must, that anything we do by way of a generous contribution for that class, is going to be a diminishing charge. He should take this opportunity of making this Bill an Act under which all barriers are swept away and through which all that a grateful nation felt it could give had been given to those who had been, as it were, the very foundation of its coming into being.

At the request of the Mansion House Committee I want to say to the Minister that Section 3 of the Bill should deal with the relatives of all deceased persons. As the section stands it provides for the relatives of deceased persons who died prior to a date in 1925 or, in certain cases, 1927, as a result of a wound or disability attributable to service. These limiting provisions confine the benefits of these allowances to a very small number.

The Mansion House Committee make the point that there is no reason in equity why these allowances should not be paid to widows and dependents irrespective of the date of death and they asked me—and I support their claim—to suggest that there should be no limiting date in the section and that the Minister between this and the next stage should consider removing the restriction.

The point has been made that a man can die at any time and that a widow should not be penalised because he lived too long. That, in effect, is the position under the section, that a widow can be penalised simply because her husband lived too long. I know, and the House knows, that there is nosuch intention behind the section but that is the effect of it.

I would ask the Minister, between this and the next stage of the Bill, to reconsider the point which has already been made on the Second Reading. He may find it possible, without any great difficulty, to remove that limitation. I would very strongly press the Minister to consider it. It is not simply an idea of my own. It is an idea that has behind it the whole weight of the organised bodies of the Old I.R.A. who have come together in what is known as the Mansion House Conference for the purpose of endeavouring in every way they can to remove anomalies in the Acts and grievances as far as recipients are concerned in regard to pensions legislation. I would strongly recommend that the limiting provisions of the section be deleted.

While I have all the sympathy in the world with the point of view put forward by Deputy Cowan and other Deputies, I realise that no country in the world can do full justice to the relatives of the men who fought and died in a war of independence. I feel that a four-year period, as expressed in this section, is rather short. From the fullness of my experience as a member of the Registration Board that dealt with the cases under the 1932 Act and bearing in mind the human story that is contained between the covers of the files of applicants for disability pensions, an unknown story of glorious heroism of the relatives, the fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, of the men who fought for this country and who died for this country, I feel that we as a Parliament, through legislation, could never render the measure of justice that is due to these people.

Therefore, I wish to express my personal opinion in the matter. I feel that this four-year period is rather short. A man must have died within four years of the receipt of his wound on military service and as a result of that wound before the relatives can benefit under this particular section. In the case of a man who contracted disease, there is a limiting date, as has been pointed out. How far one would go in extending that date is adebatable point and whether it would be possible to include all persons under any legislation is a matter of doubt.

If we take the Bill as it stands, as a measure of justice, and agitate in future, as far as we possibly can, for an extension to other classes of persons of the benefits conferred on the limited few in this Bill, we would be at the moment doing our duty by our people and by our comrades in the struggle for independence.

Mr. A. Byrne

We all welcomed the Bill and congratulated the Minister on its introduction. We still welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on the effort he has made. Most members of the House received a letter this morning from the Mansion House Committee, signed by Mr. Michael Cremen, who is very well known to many members of the House. The Mansion House Committee find fault with the Bill. The letter says:—

"The Committee therefore confidently appeal for your assistance in securing the removal or amendment of these obnoxious provisions."

The Mansion House Committee say that the Bill contains certain obnoxious provisions and ask for their removal. The first paragraph of the letter reads:—

"The Mansion House Old I.R.A. Pensions Committee, on examination of the Army Pensions Bill, 1953, at present before the Dáil find embodied therein a number of provisions which, if enacted, will perpetuate on Old I.R.A. disabled pensioners, the injustices set out in the printed pamphlets ‘Claims of the Old I.R.A.' and ‘What Ireland owes to the Old I.R.A.,' and in the memorandum circulated to all members of the Dáil on the 17th October 1952."

They object to certain limiting dates. They object to certain time limits. They are satisfied with the right of appeal. They go on to say:—

"In our opinion the Military Service Registration Board as at present constituted is not a suitable body to deal with appeals."

The Deputy is discussing the Bill as a whole while we are now discussing Section 3.

Mr. A. Byrne

This is a general review by people who asked that the Bill should be brought in and who suggested certain remedies.

The Deputy must not discuss the entire Bill on this section.

Mr. A. Byrne

The section could be improved. I merely rise to put forward the points of view expressed by the committee set up for the purpose of dealing with this Bill by the people who are to benefit. Nobody wants to belittle the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Bill, but I ask him to go a step further and remove the obnoxious clauses.

Perhaps it would be well for me to make this point clear on this section. The Minister may recall that on last Thursday night it was because some of us were interested in the possibility of bringing in amendments that we did not agree to the measure going through that night or on Friday. We are as sorry as anyone else that we should cause any delay. We accept the fact that certain amendments which we put down were ruled out of order, but I know the Minister will realise that we wanted to keep within the scope of the Bill.

Our anxiety is with regard to the position of the retired Army men who will be covered under this section in connection with pensions. We all agree that undoubtedly this Bill is a step forward, and even more than a step forward in regard to consideration for the people who will come under it. It is true, as the Minister said, that there are bound to be borderline cases. While, apparently, the Minister is confined within certain specific lines under the military pensions code, I think that the differentiation between the lower-grade pensioner and the higher-grade pensioner is rather complicated. I can appreciate the Minister's difficulty and, because of that, I can see where he stands in this matter. But we mustunderstand, also, that in the case of certain percentage increases being given to ex-military personnel, those from the rank of lieutenant upwards will undoubtedly gain an advantage under this section, because it is quite plain that just before an officer retires on pension he is promoted to a higher rank. But the men who retired in 1947, whether they were corporals or sergeants, and who had not the advantage of getting promotion prior to leaving the Army, are undoubtedly at a disadvantage. I am aware that the difficulties which arise in this matter under the code operating at present are not possible of being surmounted. I ask the Minister, however, in fairness to these men in the lower grades to take into consideration that the pensions they get and the increases they are getting are relatively much smaller. Owing to the families which these men in the lower grade have to keep, as against the number in the family of some captain or somebody higher up who undoubtedly gets advantages under this Bill and other Bills which have not been given to the lower ranks in the Army, it is much harder on these men to exist on the small pension they get. As Deputy Hilliard mentioned, all we can do perhaps at this stage is to hope that we may be near the day when legislation will be introduced to help those who need help and not those who are fairly well off.

With regard to amendment No. 10 in the name of Deputy MacEoin, has there been any ruling on that?

It is included in the ruling with regard to amendments Nos. 2 to 10.

Has the Minister anything to say about amendment No. 10, in regard to which there was an anxiety on the part of Deputy MacEoin that he should take power which would give him the opportunity in a case of real hardship in which he might be anxious to exercise his discretion to do so?

I want to deal with one small point in regard to this particularsection. Sub-section (2) (b) says that the section will not apply in the case of a deceased person whose death was due to any serious negligence or misconduct on his part. In the discussion of this matter my attention was drawn to the fact that there might be cases where in fact the death might be due to what might be termed misconduct, but that the misconduct might arise from the effects of wounds or injuries or the treatment for them. It would be a matter of a very simple drafting amendment to provide that if the misconduct was due either to the effect of wounds or disease or the treatment for wounds or disease the relatives would not be deprived of the allowance. I think the Minister will agree that it is simply a matter of putting in a form of words which would cover that.

A case was mentioned to me of a person who, as a result of very serious injuries, was obliged to take drugs and, under the effect of the drugs, took more of them than he should have taken and in that way brought about his death, which could be considered death by misconduct, and the widow in these circumstances would not benefit. It is a very simple amendment and I think the Minister will be able to meet the point, which again is put forward by the Mansion House Committee.

I support the appeal made to the Minister from all sides of the House to make this particular concession with regard to the qualifying date. I am not in a position to know, as I suppose the Minister is, what would be the cost of such a concession. But, whatever it is, I think the Minister should consider the case which has been put up by other Deputies and by the organisation of the Old I.R.A. We are all anxious to see justice done in these matters. I am one of those who hold that when legislation is going through providing for expenditure it should be accompanied by a provision for meeting the expenditure out of revenue. Of course, unfortunately, the position is that at certain times we have legislation for increased expenditure and we are all in favour of it, butat other times, when it comes to a question of raising the necessary money by taxation, we are inclined to oppose that increased taxation. It would be a good thing if the two sides of the Bill could be presented to the House together so that those who advocate increased expenditure would also advocate the necessary taxation to meet it. But if this concession which is asked for by all the Deputies in the House for the Old I.R.A. does involve increased taxation I am sure no member of the House will object.

While I thoroughly agree with Deputies Cowan and Collins and the last speaker, it would be well for the House to remember that between 1948 and 1951 the only pensioners in the State who received no increase were the Old I.R.A., with the exception of the small increase in the disability pension. I remember putting down a question to the Minister for Defence at the time asking what it would cost to increase the special allowances by 25 per cent., and I was told £250,000 and that the Minister had no intention of doing that. It would be well to bear that in mind. I think the Minister has gone a long way to meet appeals from all sides. While we would all wish him to extend the scope of the Bill—and I would especially like to see widows of deceased persons who are drawing special allowances getting something, because those people are really the people that I am most interested in, these people who are destitute and incapable of looking after themselves. But it would be well for the people who are speaking to view the picture as it existed between 1948 and 1951.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I would ask the Minister to postpone a final decision on this Bill and to give Deputies a further opportunity of handing in amendments to it. The Minister, I am sure, will agree that it is a very difficult Bill for the layman to peruse and to find out the true meaning of each particular section and amendment. I think it isonly after a good deal of consideration that Deputies will realise that there are some snags in it that could be, I believe, remedied without any great increase in taxation.

Once there is even a halfpenny increase your amendments would be ruled out.

Even if it is an increase in taxation I believe the nation owes it to those who are disabled and to those who have died and to their widows. After 700 years, the I.R.A. was the only successful army in this country. It regained the nation's freedom and I doubt if there is even one man in this country who would honestly believe that increased taxation was not fully justified.

Some men now find themselves in the position that their lives have been cut short because of the abnormal activities and abnormal hardships they went through in the days of 1920 and 1921 and later periods. I doubt, as I said, if there are any people who would object. I think the House as a whole appreciates that the Minister has been going a certain distance but, unfortunately, this Bill does not cover many deserving cases. I take the opportunity of mentioning the case of the widow of Jim Stapleton. No man gave greater service than he gave. His wife is now an invalid and depending, possibly, on the meagre earnings of some relatives. I do not think that any other nation in the world would allow the widow of such a man as Jim Stapleton to live in impecunious circumstances — a man of so many activities, many of them individual, to his credit. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to try and take into consideration the granting of a decent allowance to Jim Stapleton's widow.

As I said the Bill is intricate. It has been very difficult for the ordinary layman to deal with. Deputies with legal knowledge, like Deputy Collins and others, are naturally able to interpret it and find out where many little snags are. I think, therefore, we should have a postponement of a few days with the agreement of the Minister to give further time to consideramendments, or perhaps the Minister would bring them in himself. I do not think it would hold up the Bill unnecessarily. I think the Bill could be dealt with in a few hours next week, and it would give the Deputies a greater opportunity of making a better case for the many deserving cases that they now find confronting them. We must always try as far as we can to have equality in so far as old soldiers of the I.R.A. are concerned. Making fish of one and flesh of the other is bad. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter. After all, some of these amendments may not cost the State very much—I hope they will not—but even if the State or posterity in a few years' time were faced with a little extra bill, I do not believe that posterity would be so ungrateful as to demur in the smallest way at meeting their just obligations to the soldiers of the Republic who gave their blood for this country or who shortened by many years what in the ordinary way would be a very long life by the abnormal hardships they went through.

I believe the country as a whole— and it is a good thing to feel that— would welcome at all times any benefits that would be conferred either on the soldiers who obtained freedom or on their widows who might, perhaps, be living in impecunious circumstances.

Nobody knows better than you, Sir, how difficult, almost impossible, it is for a private Deputy to bring in amendments to this Bill.

It is impossible ; it cannot be done.

Therefore, one has to rely on the known generosity and the goodwill of the present Minister in a matter of this kind. I confess—and other Deputies would not, perhaps, like to confess—that I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the administration of measures of this kind to know what type of individual case could or could not be covered by the measure as it exists now. I was surprised to hear from Deputy Davern that the case ofthe widow of the late Jim Stapleton, whom I knew very well, cannot be covered by the measure as it now stands. I join with Deputy Davern in asking the Minister to ensure that cases of this kind will be covered. I knew the late Jim Stapleton a very long time, and his wife's people, although I am not as well acquainted with the great services he gave to the country as Deputy Davern and Deputy Dan Breen would be. Suggestions were made on previous stages of the Bill and again to-day—I do not know whether it was intended to cast by inference or otherwise a reflection on Labour Deputies—that Deputies on this side of the House would always support appeals of the kind now being made but that we would not stand for the taxation necessary for that purpose when proposals for taxation are brought before the House.

There is no truth in that suggestion.

Deputy Cogan hinted at it in the brief remarks he made a few moments ago. I have no hesitation in saying that it should not be necessary to raise additional taxation to cover the kind of cases that have been mentioned and which it is desired to bring within the scope of this Bill. I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee at one time and was a member of that committee for a considerable period, and in that capacity I had an opportunity of examining the Defence Estimates for a number of years. Is there anybody in this House, who knows the framework of the Defence Estimates, who could not say that, even this year, savings could be effected without endangering the security of the State which would ensure that every case of the kind mentioned here would be met out of existing taxation? It would be possible to take a big slice off the amount provided under the sub-head for warlike stores which would make ample provision for the isolated cases mentioned here by Deputy Davern and other Deputies. Out of the provision made for warlike stores, it would be possible to make savings more than sufficient to provide for every class mentioned here andthere would not be the slightest danger to the security of the State by doing that. It would be quite easy to cut the provision for warlike stores by 25 per cent. Deputy Cowan, I am sure, has a more intimate knowledge of what it is necessary to provide for warlike stores than I have, but I think he will agree that it would be possible to take a slice off the expenditure proposed under that heading which would be more than ample to cover cases of the kind which he has in mind. I support the appeal made by Deputy Davern in regard to the cases he has mentioned and I hope the Minister will be in a generous mood—and he is usually in a generous mood—and try to meet the few appeals that have been made to cover cases of the kind mentioned.

That is why I ask the Minister, notwitstanding the fact that amendment No. 10 in the name of Deputy MacEoin has been ruled out of order——

I think, a Cheann Comhairle, with all respect that if amendments are ruled out of order they cannot be mentioned. I could put down 40 amendments knowing in advance that they would be ruled out of order but I would not do so. I would remind Deputy Collins that he is not helping the case of these people by referring again to an amendment which has been ruled out of order.

I think that is a typical contribution by a Deputy who put down about 500 amendments to the Defence Bill knowing that they were out of order but who raised them time after time in order to get publicity for himself. In this particular case, I am merely asking the Minister would he consider the substance of an amendment that would give him discretionary powers to deal with individual cases such as have been referred to here? We want him to consider between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad, the introduction of some kind of saving section that would enable him to deal with specific cases of hardship. As to whether that is helping these cases or not, I amcertainly not taking any directions from the gallant little captain.

I accept fully the decision ruling out of order the amendment put down in my name but I want to have corrected a statement which has twice been made, that we knew when we were putting down these amendments that they would be ruled out of order. I challenge any member of the House to say that these amendments were not genuinely put down with the object of covering certain cases. I am not going to allow any member say that we put down amendments which we knew beforehand were out of order.

I did not suggest that.

I should like to say, first of all, in reply to Deputy Davern that, so far as I am concerned, it is a matter of indifference how long the House wishes to spend on the debate on this Bill. If Deputies wish to discuss the Bill at very great length they are entitled to do so. Perhaps a longer debate might add considerably to the knowledge of the Bill possessed by those outside who are interested in it. I have not attempted to push the Bill through the House but appeals have been made by several Deputies that the House should not hold up the Bill or delay its passage and giving as their reason for these appeals the fact that a large number of people would benefit by the Bill and that the sooner it was through the House the sooner would the benefits reach these people. Deputies had since last Thursday to put down amendments. Any Deputy who was sufficiently interested in the Bill could have put down an amendment in that time. I can see no reason why any Deputy who is sufficiently interested in any particular type of case or in any section dealing with a particular type of case did not put down an amendment.

There was plenty of time to put down amendments but it was impossible to put them down.

The fact, that theywould be ruled out of order, I had in mind.

It is very difficult for a Deputy to put down an amendment if it is going to entail increased expenditure. I realise that. That is what Deputy Davern was talking about. I am not saying whether the amendment would or would not be in order. I am only saying that there was plenty of time to put down an amendment since last Thursday.

I do not think the Minister should take it that we were making any complaints in regard to the time allowed. We are quite satisfied that the time was long enough.

The House has so far dealt with this Bill in the way one would expect Deputies to deal with it. They have dealt with it in a nonpolitical atmosphere and that is what we want. If we can continue along that line, I think we shall make more progress. I want to say that the Bill represents the long considered views of the Government. I am not objecting to the statements made on this stage appealing for increased provision under various aspects of the Bill because these statements more or less reflect the views which I myself expressed when I was discussing this measure with the Government but I want to say that the Bill represents the considered views of the Government and, so far as I am now aware, there will not be any advance beyond the few amendments which I propose to introduce in the course of the Committee Stage which will produce some amelioration for certain classes of people mentioned in the Bill. Beyond that it is not possible to go.

Deputy Davin referred to possible savings on warlike stores which I presume he meant could be utilised in bringing relief to these people. By coincidence this particular year, every penny earmarked for warlike stores is actually spent and all we await is the delivery of the stores for which the money is earmarked. When they come the warlike stores sub-head will actually be completely exhausted.

Does not the Minister know that on a number of occasions—I know it anyway—considerable portions of this money have gone back into the Exchequer?

That was in a year when we were not able to get proper supplies.

This is one of God's wonderful miracles that has got them for this year.

There were periods when we were not able to get any stores. Now we are in the happy position of being able to get as much as we want. The tide has turned.

I hope they are of the modern type.

That is the position we find ourselves in, in fact. The position to which Deputy Cowan has referred has appeared in every Act of this kind and I have no doubt it appears in other Acts as well. The particular type of case to which the Deputy has referred can be dealt with in a humane way, and with a full realisation of the conditions that brought about the situation which he mentioned.

I think that if there is that assurance of sympathetic consideration of cases such as that it would probably meet it.

No case has ever come to my knowledge, and I doubt if the Deputy——

I mentioned cases but I did not mention any particular cases.

Yes. Again I would like to say, in reply to the appeals. which have been made to me and to the somewhat sentimental references that have been made to particular cases, that if a case comes within this Bill it will be dealt with, and dealt with sympathetically. If it is outside the Bill, there is nothing we can do about it, nothing anyone can do about it. It is outside the Bill and that is all there is to it.

I think myself that the Bill represents a reasonably generous effort on the part of this Government to meet the needs of the Old I.R.A.; and as I said on the Second Stage, this Bill need not necessarily represent the last effort of either this Government or any other Government which may follow it. Whenever another Government succeeds us there is no reason why it cannot introduce a Bill and provide amelioration in the same way as we have done; but I have to say that this represents finality as far as we are concerned at the present time, taking all things into consideration.

With regard to the amendments to which Deputy Seán Collins referred, I must say that Deputy MacEoin was not himself getting rid of what he is objecting to, because he was imposing a time limit to the right of the persons to apply as well.

After January, 1954, his amendments would rule out applications, too, so that in effect he was only attempting to get in people up to a certain date. The main purpose of Part II of this Bill is to give increased benefits to dependents of deceased persons who were killed during the 1916-1923 period, and with the dependents of those who were killed are linked the dependents of those who, although not executed or killed outright, died within four years from wounds received or disease incurred during the period in question. In other words, death within four years is being equated with having been executed or killed outright. That idea was also apparent in, for instance, the Acts of 1927 and 1932.

There is the same position under Section 25 of the Bill in relation to members of the Defence Forces where, if a person is killed outright on duty or dies within four years of wounds received on duty, the normal allowance payable to the widow and children will be increased by 33? per cent. or whatever it may be. What Deputy MacEoin wishes is to give enhanced allowances to the widows and children of all persons who died as a result of wounds or disease attributable to service duringthe 1916-1923 period irrespective of when the person died. The persons to whom the Deputy refers are not unprovided for. They are eligible for the allowances already laid down in the Acts as proposed to be increased by the appropriate sum—50 per cent. in most cases—under this Bill. Furthermore, in case there may be widows and children who might not be covered at present by reason of the date of marriage that date is being extended up to the 9th December, 1932. The enhanced allowances now being provided for the first time in Part II of this Bill are, however, intended as a special recognition of those who were actually killed or executed during the 1916-1923 period and of those who are regarded as being in much the same position because of the fact that they died within four years from wound or disease. All other cases will be dealt with under the existing Acts as applicable up to the present, rates payable being, of course, increased in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.

Now Deputies will notice that my amendments have been handed round and, if there was no objection, I would propose to move those amendments in the course of the debate.

I have no objection. There is no objection to that.

If the House has no objection to accepting these amendments as they are now we could go on with the Committee Stage.

I think you can take it that we would all be agreed. I do not want to delay this Bill one minute. The only thing I want to say is——

All I want to say is that we have only an hour.

It is necessary that I should make a further appeal to the Minister to reconsider this particular point that we have already made although he says this is as far as the Government can feel itself obliged to go. I think the matter is of such importance and brings benefit, not to a great number of people but to some people, that the Minister might, andI think it would be the desire of the House that he should, reconsider the case that has been made from all sides of the House to him at some stage before the Bill is finally passed in respect to the 1925 and 1927 limitations in this section.

Could I press the Minister on one point? Would he consider, at some further stage of the Bill, taking discretionary power to deal with any hardship case where some discriminating factor in the Bill operates unreasonably? I think the Minister should have the power to cover a case such as that referred to by Deputy Davern.

We will look into that between this and the Report Stage. That is all I can say.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 10a, as circulated in typescript:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), lines 34 and 35, page 6, to delete the words "was on the 1st day of January, 1953," and to substitute in lieu thereof the word "is".

This is a drafting amendment. If the Bill went through in its present form a person to whom the amendment refers would not be able to apply if she became a widow after the 1st January, 1953.

It says: "if she was unmarried on the 1st January, 1953," so she could apply if she were married subsequently. There would be confusion there.

We are removing certain words and inserting a word so that the sub-section will read:—

"Grant to such one sister of such deceased person, as the Minister may direct, provided such sister is unmarried or a widow..."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 10b:—

In sub-section (1) line 3, page 7, after the word "save" to insert the words "an application made by a widow pursuant to paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of this Act which shall be made not later than 12 months after she became a widow or 12 months after the date of the passing of this Act whichever is the later and save".

This is consequential.

This section provides for a limitation to a period of 12 months after the passing of the Bill. In many Acts this 12 months' provision has been made and when we come to amend them we extend the period for a further 12 months. Here we are dealing with applications for the grant of an allowance and I would recommend to the Minister—this is again a submission and a claim by the Mansion House Old I.R.A. Committee—that the limitation in date should be deleted and that a person should be entitled to apply for an allowance at any time, provided that person is entitled to it under the provisions of the Act.

We could not accept that, for the simple reason that a particular person, a sister, for example, might apply and nobody else might apply within the period of 12 months. A widow might not have known of the particular section and the result would be that she would be out, as there would already have been somebody who would have applied. We could not accept it, from that point of view alone.

Would the Minister not consider that, in the event of death, there will be one person dependent on the deceased, or who could be considered as dependent on the deceased? I do not think the difficulties the Minister envisages would occur in fact. The real person who would be entitled will make the claim within as short a period as possible, but if a claim is not made within 12 months it should not be turned down.

I mentioned on the Second Stage thecase of a widow of an army officer who retired. She was not aware that she would be entitled to a pension and consequently she was ruled out. I think this section will bring her in. It could occur in the future that for one reason or another some other persons will omit to make a claim within 12 months—which is a very short period —and in those circumstances they would be debarred, although genuinely entitled to the allowance.

Amendment agreed to.

I move the opposition to the section, on behalf of Deputy Seán MacEoin. I know that the spirit which actuated the opposition to this section revolves inevitably around the question of the time barrier. When the last Pensions Bill was going through, I recollect that the Minister was inclined to the view that he would not put in a specific time limit at all if the House felt that a date was not necessary. I feel we have arrived at the stage where we should not have any limit of 12 months. As properly referred to by Deputy Cowan, we inevitably find ourselves passing Bill after Bill providing for further extensions.

It is regrettable that extensions from now on will be of little avail to most of the recipients, as with the march of time the number of likely applicants will become fewer and fewer. The Minister might be serving a better purpose by leaving out the time factor altogether. If anybody is entitled in justice to get any benefits under the scheme now designed by the Minister, it ill behoves us to put some artificial barrier, such as a date, to debar them.

There are circumstances under which people quite genuinely may not become aware of their right within the 12 months or may not be in a position to make a claim within 12 months and, for the sake of words and words only, the Minister might remove the specific 12 months' period altogether. It was on that basis that Deputy MacEoin wished to oppose the section and if the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking to reconsider this between this and some further stage of the Bill, eitherhere or in the Seanad, we will be perfectly satisfied to accept his undertaking so to do.

I appreciate Deputy MacEoin's point of view that a person should be able to claim his entitlement whenever he likes, without being tied to any time limits. The arguments are not, however, all on one side, and where a pension or allowance is payable from a particular date, it is essential that the Department should know its maximum commitments as soon as possible. If a person can come along with a claim at any time, and his entitlement, once established, can go back over a large number of years, obviously there can be no certainty, for Estimate and similar purposes, as to the provision which should be made. Furthermore, it is now so long since the period to which these pensions and allowances relate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find witnesses and establish evidence, and with every year that passes, the position will become worse in that regard. That is another argument in favour of a time limit. In the instance to which the Deputy's amendment refers, there are even more compelling arguments. The people who may claim under Part II of this Bill are widows, parents and sisters of deceased persons. Only one allowance can, however, be paid in respect of any deceased person, and if more than one relative claims, the Minister has to decide the relative to whom the allowance will be given. It is essential, therefore, in cases such as these that there should be a time limit. Indeed, if only a sister claimed within 12 months, and if, in the absence of any other claim, she were granted the allowance, there would be no possibility of adjusting the matter if later an application was received from a parent or the widow or a sister more dependent on the deceased person than was the sister actually awarded the allowance. The allowance would have been awarded to the first sister and nothing could be done about it.

For the foreging reasons, I feel that, on balance, there should be a time limit where a question of entitlement to a pension or allowance is involved.There has never been any great difficulty, where genuine cases have arisen, in extending the time limits by later legislation. If there is any particular case of an outstanding kind, there is no reason in the world why a Minister who would examine it and see some good cause for it should not have the date extended.

If the Minister intends to leave it to his ministerial successors, then we should be involved in greater cost in the preparation of a small Bill such as this than in giving substantial benefits to the people who require them.

I must confess that the Minister's argument, in the initial stages, does not commend itself to me. I think it might best be described as departmental tripe. I do not think we should allow the question of departmental difficulties in estimating whether the amount will be, say, £2,000 or £3,000, to operate as a serious argument in relation to a time limit. Departments have, to our knowledge, been out millions of £s—never mind the question of the few paltry £s that might be involved here.

The second part of the Minister's argument commends itself to me much more readily than the first part but I do not think it is proper for a Minister, with the goodwill and sympathetic approach to Army pensions which the present Minister for Defence can boast of, to try to bolster up Civil Service Estimates.

There can be no doubt but that Deputy Collins is obsessed by the Department. I want to assure him that the argument I have advanced is based on a complete and thorough examination of the situation by myself, along with my experts. To describe it as "departmental tripe" is not correct. It represents my own views after, as I have said, consideration. I should not like to find myself in the type of position which I have just outlined, where we had awarded an allowance to a person who, after examination, had seemed to us to be the person to whom it should have been awarded and, having done that, to find later on that some other personwas better entitled to it. I think that my suggestion is a very simple way of getting over the difficulty. The matter of expense is almost nil.

If a case such as that to which the Minister refers should, in fact, arise, we could easily cover it by bringing in a Supplementary Estimate. We did it before.

We can simply amend the Act to bring in any particular person whose case seems meritorious.

I am in full agreement with the Minister and I do not agree with Deputy Collins in this. It seems fantastic that certain advantages as regards pension will be offered and that 12 months from next January will elapse without the interested persons being made aware of and taking advantage of these benefits. I believe that the people concerned will not let 12 months or even one month pass—and they will be right. Except in a very exceptional case, there will not be a question of an applicant waiting 12 months or even one month.

I am afraid that Deputy Desmond did not get the drift of my argument. We hope that everybody entitled under this Bill will apply well within the 12 months' period. We do not, however, want a time limit of 12 months to operate against a person who, for one reason or another over which he or she had no control, did not make the application in time.

I do not believe it will happen.

It has happened in many cases.

It has occurred. I submit that the number of cases that would be affected is so small that the Minister ought not to worry about the extension of the time.

Section agreed to.

Amendment No. 11, therefore, falls.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.

The only form of appeal in this Bill is contained in this section. This section empowers the Minister to ask the Military Service Registration Board for a report on the findings in a particular case. The Mansion House Committee and other persons who are vitally interested in matters of pensions—which includes everybody entitled to a pension— believe that the appeal should be to some other party, and that the Minister should obtain power in the Bill to set up an appeal board composed of persons who are qualified by their knowledge and experience and their participation in the fight for freedom to be a competent appeal board.

I request the Minister to consider the establishment of such an appeal board to deal with the type of appeals that he considers should be referred to the Military Service Registration Board.

There is another point in the section with which I should deal at once. Section 9, sub-section (3) says:—

"The Minister may, on the grounds that evidence not available prior to the issue of the certificate has since become available..."

It is suggested that that should be altered to read: "new evidence has become available," because persons experienced in the matters of pensions find that the interpretation of "evidence not available prior to the issue of the certificate" may narrow down and restrict it in an unfair way. If the Minister would agree to that suggested alteration, it would enable cases to come up on appeal which would be ruled out on the present wording of the sub-section. I gather that the Minister would have no objection to the substitution of these words for the words "evidence not available prior to the issue of the certificate".

The registration board has been in operation since 1932 and I have never heard a solitary complaint about it. I have heard complaints of all descriptions with regard to the pensions board and other boards, but Imust admit that I have never heard a single complaint about this board.

The Minister will accept it that I am not complaining about it but suggesting a new appeal board rather than a hearing of an appeal by the same board.

I can appoint anyone I wish to the board and I think that ought to be sufficient safeguard.

It is not necessary that the registration board personnel should be the same as the personnel who made the decision?

The personnel has changed frequently. In fact, as the work reduced, we appointed departmental members but I can at any time, if the work increases to such an extent as to make it necessary, appoint whom I like.

I wanted to make sure that the same people would not be hearing the appeal as had made the decision.

That is what is here.

The point at the back of Deputy Cowan's mind is that a number of people might be getting back to deal with a decision by themselves, on appeal. I do not think that is likely to arise.

It is not likely to arise at all.

The Mansion House Committee put this forward for consideration by the Minister and by the Dáil. They are a very experienced body of persons, who are acting——

They are no more experienced than many Deputies here.

The people with whom I have been in contact have personal experience of dealing with hundreds of individual cases, which gives them an experience which none of us, except the Minister, could possibly have.

I do not agree for a moment. There are Deputies here who are as fully competent as, and, in some respects, more competent than, any member of that committee, by reason of the fact that they are dealing with this type of legislation year in and year out. The opinions voiced here in the course of the debate on behalf of the people who will benefit under the Act are a proof of that, of the fact that not only have they the knowledge to which I have referred, but have also a sympathetic outlook in regard to pension applicants. So far as I am concerned, I would naturally be as anxious as any Deputy to ensure that any board we would set up to examine these cases—and it is only certain cases that will be referred to it—would deal with them as sympathetically as any other body of individuals that could be got.

Would the Minister consider a very small amendment to ensure that, in the event of his having to refer a decision back to the registration board, on appeal, none of the personnel who sat on the previous investigation would sit on the body hearing the appeal?

I can look into that.

I know that that will go some distance to meet the point of view which has been put forward. There is no suggestion of any unfairness, but it is felt that the appeal board should not be the board which considered and decided on the case, in the first instance. Will the Minister consider the point I made with regard to the substitution of certain words? I feel that the Minister will have no trouble about it, but I do not want to force him to commit himself. If he will say that he will examine it, I shall be satisfied.

I will have it examined.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

The difficulty about this section—it was discussed on Second Reading—is the difficulty of trying to ascertain on what these increases are based. The increases range from 50 per cent., in certain cases, down to 28 per cent. and they fall short of what was very strongly recommended. I do not want that to be taken as indicating that the effort made with regard to the increases is not appreciated as being generous. I am wondering if the Minister could explain how, in some cases, there is a 50 per cent. increase and, in others, a 28 per cent. increase, with varying percentage increases down along the line.

The increases are based on the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950. Those were the percentages agreed upon in connection with that Act and we introduced them then into the Military Service Pensions Act, 1953, and, when we came to find a basis on which to give increases under this Bill, we applied them also.

Was that the Finance Act of 1950?

I mentioned on Second Reading that there are certain matters of difficulty in regard to the whole of pensions legislation and I advocated the setting up of a parliamentary committee to examine it. I know that nothing I can do here can bring about any alteration now and any reference back of the section for examination by the Minister, in the light of anything anybody says here, would unduly delay the operation of the Bill. I simply repeat what I have already said, that we should have a parliamentary committee to examine into all this legislation, particularly in regard to the basic amounts paid, because at one stage, when the Acts were originally introduced, there was a rather niggardly approach to the matter of pensions. The result, therefore, is that the basis of pensions has been all wrong all the time. Although there have been generous increases on a percentage basis, justice has not been done and cannot possibly be done toeverybody by that form of percentage increase. As I say, this could not be dealt with now on this stage and I will content myself by simply saying that there is a good case for the examination of this and other sections in regard to the basic amount and the percentage increases. We can at an early date endeavour to have a parliamentary committee established to inquire into it and make recommendations to the Minister and the House.

You should take the chance now that you have the power.

This point in regard to percentages will resolve itself into a question of a means test. I understood that at one time the Minister would take steps to have the whole matter considered. I understand that the type of means test in regard to these pensions is different from the assessment in connection with other Pensions Acts.

Sections 12 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 11a:—

In line 31, page 12, to delete the figure "33?" and to substitute in lieu thereof the figure "50".

I think the Minister is to be commended upon accepting the suggestion in this regard that was made to him by Deputy Major de Valera on the Second Stage of the Bill. This section provides for payments to the dependents of an officer or a soldier. While undoubtedly the 50 per cent. increase in the case of an officer's widow will be a substantial amount, unfortunately, in the case of the widow of a soldier the amount is not a very considerable one. I have been furnished with particulars of the widow of a sergeant-pilot who was killed on duty and in circumstances that would entitle her to be paid a pension under the section.

That case is further aggravated by reason of the fact thatthe sergeant-pilot was killed just before being commissioned.

Major de Valera

Section 27 would deal with it.

Section 27 would deal with it also but Section 25 deals with the dependents of an officer or a soldier serving in the forces and who receives a wound from which he dies. That section now provides for an increase of 50 per cent. for the widow of an officer or a soldier instead of 33? per cent. as provided in the Bill. In the particular case to which I refer apparently the widow receives a widow's and orphan's contributory pension. The widow's pension is £1 4s. and the orphan's pension is 7/—a total of £1 11s. She gets an Army modified pension of 16/6, making up a total of £2 7s. 6d. This is a case where the operation of the percentages does not, in my opinion, do justice. If the widow of that sergeant-pilot is entitled only to £2 7s. 6d. for herself and a child, I think the Minister ought to consider this on the basis of that payment. Undoubtedly, I think the House will agree that a pension in those circumstances, including the widow's and orphan's contributory pension of £2 7s. 6d., is inadequate. I would make a strong appeal to the Minister to consider the facts of that case in conjunction with the section because I do think there ought to be a bigger percentage increase in the case of the widow of a sergeant or a private soldier.

On the section——

We are discussing the amendment.

I think that Deputy Cowan has struck the keynote of the difficulty that arises in connection with many of these cases. The Minister will have to look at it individually on the basis of adequacy. The particular case referred to by Deputy Cowan is within the knowledge of most of us. I would say that that particular case is even more aggravated by the fact that the untimely demise of this sergeant-pilot took place at a time when he wasabout to be commissioned and had a very short time elapsed his now unfortunate widow and child would, in fact, be reaping the benefits set out for a commissioned officer. This case merits reconsideration by the Minister and his experts because two circumstances have operated very harshly against the widow. In the first place, her husband was taken from her untimely and, in the second place, the circumstances were such that at the time he was in the in-between period between losing his status as a flight-sergeant and becoming a commissioned officer of the Air Corps.

We are up against the difficulty that we have not got basically any fundamental basis for pension assessment and it is very difficult to press the Minister to take each individual case on a question of adequacy. I think the Minister can take it that this percentage basis, where N.C.O.s and men are concerned, is not operating to alleviate the sufferings of the widows and children of such personnel to anything like the extent that the percentage goes to alleviate the sufferings of the widow and children of the commissioned group.

I do not know if the Minister can at this stage do anything about it but I feel that with the goodwill of the House and with our anxiety to give him as rapidly as possible all stages of the Bill he might take the opportunity, between this and the Report Stage, of trying to adjust the situation with regard to N.C.O.s and men more on the basis of the adequacy of the increase than on a flat percentage.

May I intervene at this stage to say that I had this matter under consideration? The position now is that the widow concerned will get the 50 per cent. increase and that, whereas hitherto the widow's and orphan's pension was taken into consideration, I have now secured agreement that it will not be taken into consideration in future. The result will be that the widow we all have in mind will be receiving a sum of £3 9s. 7d. a week.

That is satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a particular case that has arisen. It is not covered at the moment and I doubt whether the Minister will be able to do anything about it. It was the case of a man in the professional public service whose son, intended for the professions, joined the Army during the emergency and due to the premature explosion of a bomb during training, lost his life. His father has since died suddenly and his mother is now a widow. Nothing much was said or expected at the time owing to the fact that the father was in good employment, and so on. The mother would now be largely dependent on this young man were he alive. I do not know whether the Minister could bring into consideration that or any other such cases that would arise. I just mention it for that purpose.

Major de Valera

There is one point I would like to stress in approaching this section, that this section has now a provision which we had not got before in the nature of an insurance provision for fatal accidents, but we should not confuse that with the provisions of Section 27. Deputy Cowan has raised a point with which I must express some sympathy, but I do happen to know that the Minister had contemplated dealing with the particular difficulties that arise in these cases. There is no need to go into them now, because the Minister is completely cognisant of them and has indicated that some reductions in pensions payable would now be got over, but in my view it would be better to meet that in principle under Section 27 rather than under Section 25. Of course that does not mean that some adjustment in Section 27 might not be desirable. However, we can deal with that on that section. I think the Minister and his officers have shown great willingness to try to meet this problem, and it is an improvement on the section to increase the percentage as the Minister has done.

I think the House will be glad to know that the Minister has been so concerned about particular cases that he has in fact been in touch with the Department of Social Welfare, as a result of which there will be an increase in this particular pension. However, where you have a widow and one child, perhaps the sum of £3 9s. 7d. would not be considered an adequate sum to enable that woman to buy clothes for herself and the child, to pay rent and to purchase food, that is, leaving out any of the other amenities of life.

I am not pressing it any more than this, that I do think the Minister should consider, notwithstanding what is provided in the section, the question of a minimum pension which, in my view, should be something higher than the amount mentioned. I would ask the Minister to consider that, and I certainly would like to express my appreciation of the humane and sympathetic way in which he has dealt with these cases.

I think the Minister might consider the possibility of meeting the type of case referred to by Deputy Seán MacCarthy. I myself know the circumstances of the particular case he has in mind. I do not know in what way the Minister could provide for it under this particular section but it would be apropos of this section that anything would have to be done. I do feel the matter raised by Deputy MacCarthy will receive consideration from the Minister and only adds further to my belief in relation to the request that Deputy Cowan has made both on this stage of the Bill and on the Second Reading, that the time has come when there should be some kind of parliamentary committee set up to investigate, not only such anomalies or cases of hardship that my arise under the code but this particular case referred to by Deputy MacCarthy, which is within my own knowledge and which does lead to hardship that could not reasonably be anticipated. I think the Minister may agree that the life lost in the circumstances of that untimely explosion could in normal circumstances reasonably have beenaccepted to be a very large contributing factor to the support of the now widowed mother.

Under Section 40 of the Bill she could apply; the question of dependency would arise but under Section 40 she will be enabled to apply for an allowance.

There would be a difficulty in proving dependency, the husband having been alive for so many years.

If the husband died and the son was alive she would be to some extent dependent on the son.

Yes. As regards the other point raised by Deputy Cowan, let me say that this is as far as I can get at the moment, and it is some advance.

It is definitely.

We may be able to do something better on some other Bill. You will see in the next amendment with which we will be dealing another attempt at helping widows. In addition to that, every one of the widows of men killed in these circumstances and who are living in Dublin are employed in the Department of Defence. Therefore, as far as trying to ease the lot of those widows is concerned, we have gone a reasonable distance and I think this will bring further relief.

Section 25, as amended, and Section 26, put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.

I move amendment No. 11b:—

In sub-section (1), at the end of the new Part II of the Seventh Schedule to the Act of 1927 set out therein, to add the following new paragraph:—

4. Repayment of amount proved to have been in fact necessarily and properly expended in educational fees but not exceeding £30 in any one calendar year in respect of any one child. This allowance is additionalto the allowance stated at No. 3.

Major de Valera

On this amendment there is a question of the amount of the allowance and, of course, there is no question of substantiating the claim. That must be done in any event but on the wording of this section it is necessarily and properly expended in educational fields. I think the original interpretation of that would mean that it would be a reimbursement in connection with fees in the nature of school fees actually paid. A difficulty does arise in certain cases where there is necessarily involved in the education of the children certain additional expenditure required to keep the particular students on a status commensurate with the institutions in which they are being taught. One can conceive of a case where a child is being taught in a particular school at a reduced fee and the actual outlay in fees may be less than the actual sum provided for in this particular draft.

At the same time when one considers the matters of clothes and certain other incidental expenses directly, and I am assuming probably, associated with education, the sum might exceed the actual amount of the fees but still be within the limit of the sum provided here. That suggests that a certain elasticity is needed in regard to such expenditure and a certain latitude of interpretation will be required by the Minister in order to interpret what may be properly expended in educational fees. I am wondering whether the draft could not be altered in some way to give the Minister and his Department the kind of discretion that seems to be necessary. I would be very happy to leave that discretion in the hands of the Minister and his Department because both have shown themselves to be very sympathetic in this particular matter.

Firstly, I would strongly suggest to the Minister that in relation to education there should be no difference between the child of an officer and the child of a soldier. Fees have to be paid and they depend to a large extent on the brains of thechild and not on the type of bar the father wears. I suggest there should be no difference.

Secondly, there are cases in which 18 years of age would not be sufficient. Consider the case of a boy who wants to study for the priesthood and his father dies. Very considerable expenses can be incurred in connection with that, expenses which in the ordinary way would continue until the boy reaches 25 years of age or so. There may be the question of a university degree involved or some other kind of education which does not finish at 18. The Minister should have discretion in such matters to continue until the normal educational period has expired. I appeal to the Minister to consider those aspects of the matter.

I do not think there should be any differentiation as between the child of an officer, an N.C.O., or an ordinary soldier when it comes to education. Deputy de Valera has made a reasonable case and I think he intends it to cover what I have in mind. There may be cases in which special equipment applicable to a certain institution is required. A child may have to get special nutrition.

Ordinary board might not be covered by "educational fees".

Perhaps the Minister could cover the position by introducing some amendment or by giving some permissive power of interpretation in order to include what is normally chargeable in connection with an educational institution, and not limit it, as Deputy de Valera fears it could be limited, to the actual fees expended. Tuition, books, the ordinary perquisites of institutional training whether it be through the medium of boarding school or day school in which certain meals may be supplied, should normally be included within the meaning of "educational fees". I think the Minister would be well advised to advert to the danger of a too rigid interpretation.

I generally subscribe to the views expressed, particularly in regard to equality and so on. One must remember, however, that thissituation has existed throughout the lifetime of our Army. The £30 was payable only to the child of an officer. We have got that increased now from £30 to £60 and, at the same time; I have obtained the consent of the Government to do something for the children of the soldier.

That is appreciated.

I thought I would be doing something useful if I gave the soldier the £30 that the officer had formerly. The Government agreed that the children of the soldier were entitled to something. I take it the House will pass this amendment and I suggest that this matter might be discussed in the committee about which Deputy Cowan is concerned. It is matters of this nature that would be properly applicable to a committee of that kind.

Question put and agreed to.

On the section, there is a big discrepancy as regards the amounts for the children. The Minister has stated that he got some concessions and, for those concessions, credit is due to him. But, in the case of the child of a soldier, where the widow is to get 18/9 a week, the child is to get an allowance at the rate of 1/- per day, while the mother is alive, or 2/- per day after her death. As against that, the child of an officer will get £27 per year while the mother is alive, and after the mother's death, £50 a year. Therefore, during the lifetime of the mother, the child of an officer will get something over 10/- per week, whereas in the case of the child of a soldier, it is only 7/- per week or 1/- a day. I think the Minister should investigate that. One can appreciate his difficulties, financial and other. Concessions are being given which will undoubtedly be beneficial to the child of the officer to get the advantage of a higher education. We believe that the greater portion of the money under this section will probably be expended on the children of officers, but if a serving soldier leaves a widow and a young family, the widow will hardly be able, out of the amount of pension that is allowed to her,to give the advantages of a higher education to her children. I think that if possible the Minister should, in these circumstances, see that this section is equated more in favour of the widow of the serving soldier.

Major de Valera

There are two points that I would like to come back to on this section. I know, of course, that the Minister must feel that the more he gives the more he will be asked to give. On the Second Stage, I drew attention to a certain disparity. I know it is not anything very much in figures, but still there is a £45 difference between the widow of a junior officer and a field officer, and a £35 difference between the widow of a lower grade field officer and a colonel. I would like to make this suggestion to the Minister, that he might consider adding £10 to the £90 for the widows of junior officers. I want to put it to him that there will not be very many of these cases of widows without children. That widow may be regarded as having certain advantages from one point of view, but she has certain disadvantages, too. I think it would be equitable to increase the amount to £100. The widow, in this case, comes under Section 27 but not under Section 25. I would suggest that this small sum—it cannot amount to very much in the case of the Exchequer— should be included. I should not have said that because, of course, it would include all widows. But, even so, in the case of a single widow the total amount involved would not be very much. I make that suggestion for the consideration of the Minister.

In regard to the cases of serving soldiers, I must say that, on principle, I find it hard to see why, in regard to the actual maintenance of children, there is such a big differentiation. I would like to see the sum for children brought more into line with the officers' case. With these remarks on the section, I think it will be agreed that the Minister has done quite well both in regard to this section and Section 25.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That Section 39 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to have some information from the Minister on this section. I should like to know if the position is that the widow of a person who accepted what is known as the final award, that is to say, a person whose degree of disability did not reach 80 per cent. and who agreed to accept the lower rate of pension, is not eligible for the marriage pension, or entitled to any allowance?

I, too, should like to have some information on this section. I am taking the case of a man who was not married before the 10th December, 1932.

Cases of that kind arise on Section 40.

They can be raised on this Section and on Section 40.

I am anxious to know from the Minister if there are likely to be many cases of the kind that I have in mind. I am taking the case of a man who had pre-Truce service. Are we to take it that, because he was not married prior to the 10th December, 1932, his widow will be ruled out? I am asking the Minister, if possible, to have the provision in the Bill extended so as to bring within its scope cases such as I have mentioned, since, otherwise, the widows of these men will be excluded.

In order to save time, perhaps I also might refer to that point. I had intended raising it on Section 40—that is, in regard to the provision for allowances to the widows of those who died while in receipt of a wound or disability pension. There is the limiting date, 10th December, 1932. This same point was raised on previous sections. I am raising it on this section and suggesting that this limitation of time should be deleted.

The time limit in Sections 39 and 40 could operate veryseverely against a number of people. I think that the Minister might review the date factor in general in relation to this Bill. I suggest that he might give special consideration to the date as it affects this particular section, because it could happen that, by virtue of this date, tremendous hardship might be inflicted on a number of widows and orphans. I am sure that would not be the desire of the Minister. I suggest that it would be the unanimous wish of this House that he would introduce a provision as a safeguard against any such possibility arising either under Section 39 or Section 40. I think there is a meritorious claim for the abolition of the date limit in the Bill as it stands.

I do not think it would be possible to do anything about altering the date. That date represents a tremendous advance and is, I think, one of the best things that we have done in this Bill.

Except that we are trying to get the Minister to go further.

I know there is nothing good enough, but what impressed itself on my mind was the statement that was made on the Second Reading by Deputy Ted O'Sullivan that: "This is a good Bill but I hope the next one will be better". What I feel is that,whatever we may do about the next Bill, let us, at any rate, accept this one.

We have advanced the date. We have advanced it to the 9th December, 1932. We have done very well in having the date extended and Deputies will have to be satisfied that we have got so far and leave it at that. This certainly is as far as I could press it. I would not like to go back trying to press it any further.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 40 put and agreed to.
SECTION 41.

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (2), page 18, line 33, to delete the words "the immediately preceding sub-section" and substitute in lieu thereof the words "paragraph (a) of this sub-section".

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 42 to 44, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 45.

I move amendment No. 12a:—

Before Section 45 but in Part VI of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—

Allowances to certain children of Signatories to the Proclamation published on Easter Monday, 1916.

(1) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, on application being made to the Minister, an annual allowance of £125 to:—

(a) each daughter of a Signatory to the Proclamation published on Easter Monday, 1916, and

(b) each son of such Signatory, where the Minister is satisfied that such son is incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of body or mind.

(2) Each allowance under sub-section (1) of this section shall be payable monthly in arrear and shall commence on such date (not being earlier than the date of the passing of this Act) as the Minister may determine.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing in this amendment. On Second Stage I suggested to him that he should bring in this amendment and for a number of years I have been pressing this particular matter. I am glad to see the Minister for Finance here because I understand he has been very sympathetic in regard to the section that has now been put in. In a Bill like this, that is conferring benefits, there is no better benefit the Bill could confer than a benefit such as this which will ensure that the son or daughter of a man who signed the Proclamation of 1916 will not be left in want. I heartily congratulate the Minister on bringing in the amendment.

I oppose the amendment on one basis. Here again is a discrimination that I do not like. I would not differentiate in any way between the children of the Signatories of the Proclamation of 1916 and other people who are covered in other sections. My objection to the amendment is on the basis that, when the Minister made this gesture, which is more than welcome, he made the sum so inadequate. I hear some kind of mutter from Deputy Cowan about it. I think £125 is a small allowance, particularly when, as we are all aware, the commitment under this particular section is terribly limited. If it were the unfortunate situation that a daughter or a son of a Signatory of the Proclamation of 1916 was in fact in a position that he or she was incapable of self-support—as we know some to be —I do not think £125 could be deemed to be an optimum allowance for such a person. I suggest to the Minister that it might be possible to make that a little more generous in view of the general attitude of the House to people associated with the early days of the struggle and in view of the general anxiety of the House to make this Bill more generous than other Bills have been.

While I concur absolutely with the view expressed by Deputy Cowan, that it is a matter for commendation and earnest thanks to the Minister from the House, I do think for the sake of what might be involved, maybe £100or £200 in any one year, that the sum might have been made a little more adequate in the circumstances of the value of the £ to-day on the economic market.

What I have said in respect to other pleas stands in this case. What we have here is an advance and let us accept it in the spirit in which it was given. If something better can be done at a later stage, that is another day's work.

I consider it to be a generous advance.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Sections 45 to 46, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill".

Is this the section to which a discussion apropos of the officers who were pushed out of the Army or eased out of the Army in 1946, and who, by virtue of that easement, suffered a considerable loss as regards the anticipated pension, would be germane?

We are discussing Section 47.

I want the Minister to orientate me on it and to tell me whether this is the particular section on which we may discuss what has happened to a certain group of officers who went out of the Army in 1946 and 1947 and who will suffer consequential loss of pension.

It is the degree of disablement, as the Deputy will see.

These are disability pensions.

Some of the officers I referred to are affected by disability.

Not any of the officers you had in mind.

Question put and agreed to.
Remaining sections put and agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 5 put and agreed to.
SIXTH SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That this be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

There is one point I wanted to make in connection with the percentages of disability increases. The matter has been raised on different sections in a general way and the Minister has indicated that it is the sort of thing that would be peculiarly suitable for a parliamentary committee. If there is a hope of a parliamentary committee being established at any time in the near future to look into the basis of all these pensions, all these schedules, all these percentage increases, then I would be prepared to agree that that would be the proper way of dealing with it. I had quite a number of points to raise about what appears to be unfairness in regard to the schedules, but I realise that if the Minister were to agree to have these examined they would have to be examined not only in the Department of Defence but in the Department of Finance and the result would be a considerable delay in putting this beneficial Bill into operation. Consequently, it is simply for the record that I am saying that I do not agree with the basis set up in very early legislation on which these percentage increases are now based.

Apropos of the objection raised by Deputy Cowan, I do not propose to delay the Minister at this stage either, but I am taking it that the Minister is sympathetic to the spirit that is looking for a general parliamentary committee to be set up at some foreseeable future date.

I am not unsympathetic to it, and if the House decides on having a parliamentary committee of that type I am sure that this would be the type of case which could be considered by it.

In the spirit in which the House might arrive at that decisionit is better to leave this matter to such a possible committee instead of delaying the measure at this stage by airing whatever grievances we have.

Question put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.

When will the next stage be taken?

Could we have it now?

I do not think you can have it now. There is one little point I would ask the Minister to consider. Take the case of an Old I.R.A. man who goes to St. Bricin's Hospital and who is in receipt of a 20 per cent. pension. I ask the Minister to consider inserting an amendment whereby during the period he would be in hospital he would be paid 100 per cent. pension. The Minister will see the point. If he is a month in hospital he is a month away from earning anything and he may be only in receipt of a 20 per cent. pension. Similarly, in the case of a person who is not in receipt of any percentage pension at the time he enters the hospital I think the Minister should consider that he would be put on the 100 per cent. disability basis for the period he is in hospital; the idea being that if such a person was asked to go to St. Bricin's for a month for examination he might not feel that he could afford to go and consequently it would endanger him. I ask the Minister to consider putting a section into this very comprehensive legislation to deal with that point.

If the Minister could fit in half an hour on Friday morning he would be able to get the Report Stage.

If the Order of Business permits of it. I should like to say how grateful I am to the House for the manner in which it dealt with this Bill and the expedition with which it has gone through the Committee Stage.

Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken on Friday, 24th July.
Top
Share