Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1955

Vol. 152 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 57—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (General MacEoin)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,072,700 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Wound and Disability Pensions, further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932, No. 15 of 1937, No. 2 of 1941, No. 14 of 1943, No. 3 of 1946, Nos. 19 and 28 of 1949 and No. 23 of 1953); Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, No. 43 of 1934, No. 33 of 1938, No. 5 of 1944, Nos. 11 and 34 of 1945, Nos. 7 and 28 of 1949 and No. 5 of 1953); Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936, No. 9 of 1948, No. 30 of 1950, No. 27 of 1952 and No. 4 of 1953); Payments in respect of Compensation for Members of the Local Defence Forces (No. 19 of 1946 and No. 15 of 1949); and for sundry Contributions and Expenses in respect thereof, etc.

The main provisions in this Estimate are for pensions under the Military Service Pensions Acts; wound and disability pensions, special allowances, dependents' allowances and gratuities under the Army Pensions Acts; service pensions and gratuities under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes in respect of service in the Permanent Defence Force.

The total sum required for 1955-56 is £1,609,000, which is an increase of £134,600 on the Estimate for 1954-55. The main increases occur in sub-heads F, I, J and O.

The increase of £31,336 in sub-head F—Allowances and Gratuities to Dependents, etc.—is due to provision for additional cases under the Army Pensions Act, 1953, which will come on pay during the year. These allowances and gratuities are payable to widows, parents and, in certain circumstances, brothers and sisters of persons who had pre-Truce service and who gave their lives in the struggle of the 1916 to 1923 period.

The increases of £10,860 in sub-head I—Military Service Pensions— and £18,200 in sub-head J—Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes—are due to provision for additional cases coming on pay during the year. In addition, provision has been made in sub-head J for increases in pensions and gratuities to personnel retired or discharged since 1st November, 1952, from which date increased pay came into operation.

In sub-head O the increase is £81,000. This is the sub-head under which special allowances are paid to Old I.R.A. men, etc., who satisfy the statutory conditions. The increase is due to provision for additional cases which will qualify during the year.

I trust that this brief outline of the reasons for the increased provisions will help Deputies in their examination of the Estimate. If more detailed explanations are required I shall be happy to give them.

Last year, I stated, in relation to Military Service Pensions, that I proposed to allow the present phase to be completed under existing legislation when I hoped to have a picture of the situation which would assist me in considering whether anything further would need to be done. At that time there were about 5,000 cases to be reported upon, together with such additional new applications as would be received up to the 18th March, 1955, the closing date for these applications. Since the 1st June last the number of new applications received is 450. In the ordinary course a substantial number of the 5,000 cases which were outstanding at 31st May, 1954, would have been dealt with by the end of December, 1954.

Unfortunately, owing to the untimely death of the Referee in September, 1954, it was not possible to get ahead with the examination of outstanding cases as quickly as I had hoped. The new Referee was not available until 1st January, 1955, and the work is now proceeding as rapidly as possible. I am advised that the disposal of outstanding cases will take about two years, but I am hopeful that it may be possible to reduce this period. Until these cases are out of the way, I do not think that it would be advisable to come to any decision as to the future course of action.

Mr. Traynor

There does not appear to be anything of a very controversial nature in the sub-heads which go to make up this Estimate. I notice a small decrease of £100 in sub-head D for travelling expenses. I was hoping that this did not mean that there would be any decrease in the travelling of members of the board to the country to examine cases rather than in having that work done in the board's offices. As well as I remember, when the board went to the various counties to examine cases that practice was very successful from the point of view of the number of cases which the board was able to deal with. The general impression created on my mind at the time was that that practice was rather useful from the point of view of an expeditious clearance of these particular cases. I would be sorry to think that the decrease in the sub-head, which is relatively small, would in any way affect that plan of the members gong around to deal with cases outside the board's offices.

I notice that under sub-head E— Wound and Disability Pensions and Gratuities, etc.—there is a decrease of £8,907. I presume that is due to deaths or it might be due perhaps to a lowering of the pension disability. The decrease, however, represents a rather large sum and I should like to hear the Minister explain the reason for it. I am glad to see that under sub-head F there is an increase of £31,336. In connection with this sub-head I note with very great pleasure that something like 182 widows, parents and others are now benefiting under the 1953 Act. That is something which I think the House generally can be proud of because the Deputies gave very unanimous support to that particular Act when it was going through the Dáil.

Sub-head H which deals with hospital treatment shows a decrease of £550. I have been wondering what is the cause of the decrease, if it is due to a decline in the number of patients or perhaps to the difficulty of applicants becoming entitled to hospital treatment. Sub-head I shows an increase of £10,860. It is interesting to note that the number of persons now benefiting under the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924 and 1934 is practically 14,000 and that these Acts are being administered at a cost of £614,404, with probable additional charges. I think that is all to the good. At least, it shows that the State is carrying out its commitments to the people who have been successful under this sub-head.

Sub-head O, to which the Minister made reference, deals with special allowances. This sub-head shows an increase of £81,000. Again, it will be, I am sure, of great interest, to Deputies to know that the number of people who are now benefiting under that particular Act is in the region of 4,000, and that it is costing the State £381,000.

In connection with that sub-head, it has been brought to my notice that there are numbers of cases in which men made application for pensions. They made the application in a period which would entitle them, had they made the application for a medal, to be granted a medal, but having made an application for a pension—as we all know "hope springs eternal in the human breast"—they felt certain that their claim would succeed. Their hopes were, unfortunately, dashed, because the period within which they could have applied for the medal had expired. The result was that they fell to the ground, between the two stools. As a result they lost the right to apply for the special allowance although the former Minister had approved of the issue of the medal without the medal carrying the allowance.

We have a number of individuals who were in receipt of medals but through some slight technicality are deprived of the right of applying for a special allowance. When Deputy MacCarthy was speaking on the Defence Estimate he raised the question of the medals and I think he had something like that in mind and that he was being confronted by a number of individuals in that position. I would be glad if the Minister would look into the question of whether anything can be done to rectify that position which could not be foreseen by the unfortunate people who are involved in it. These people felt that in making the application for the pension they were within the period and fairly safe to qualify for the special allowance. Unfortunately it did not turn out that way.

As a matter of interest, I would like to know from the Minister how many persons have been successful in securing pensions under the 1949 Act. I had these returns fairly regularly and I am sure the Minister is getting them just as regularly as I was getting them. When I was leaving office the number was in the region of well over 1,000 and I am wondering how many have been added since then.

Mr. Gilbride

I would like to say a word or two regarding one or two points which mostly come under sub-head O in connection with the special allowance. I am glad to see that the Minister has increased the amount by £81,000 but I regret very much to say that in my area a large number of the people who were in receipt of the special allowance are being knocked out of it. I have already brought a few cases to the notice of the Minister. During the last few days not a single day passes but that I receive a notice telling a person that the allowance has ceased. I see that the number in receipt of it has gone from 2,906 in 1953-54 to 3,896 in 1954-55. From what I can see there must be a terrible lot of new people going on to the list because in my native parish practically two thirds of the people who received the special allowance since the thing started are being knocked off. I hope that will not continue and I hope the Minister will look into the matter and see that it is rectified.

I regret that the Minister could not see his way to accept a motion which I have tabled in regard to another matter—the award of special allowances for the medal. Why I brought this before his notice was that I came across a case of an application made for a very long period and the case was hanging fire all the time. In one particular case it was put back from time to time for eight or nine years. This case was not decided until after the claimant died on the 31st August, 1954. These people were then told that they did not qualify for a certificate. They felt that if they had applied for a medal previous to that that it would have lessened their chance of getting a certificate and a lot of them thought that one application was quite enough —and that when they applied for a certificate it should have covered the application for a medal as well.

I think the Minister should take steps to remedy that matter. The Minister may say that he advocated this at the time the Bill was going through the House but it is in his hands now to do it. There is no Bill but requires amendment from time to time. This, in my opinion, is a case for an amendment because there are cases of persons who would not qualify for a certificate but would qualify for a pension. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that case and to do something about it.

Under the same sub-head there is a very hard case. I have a letter here from the Minister's office but I will not give the name of the person referred to for obvious reasons. This is the case of a woman who applied for a special allowance in respect of the death of her son. Her case was considered and at the time of her death I think the claim was actually passed. She died some time in May, 1954, and her family was told that as the allowance was not granted until some time in August, 1954, no other member of the family could obtain it. Now they come along and state that sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act says:—

"Where on the death of a relative while in receipt of an allowance under this Part, there are one or more surviving relatives (being relatives mentioned in Section 4 of this Act) of such deceased person, the Minister may, on application being made to him, grant to such one of said surviving relatives of such deceased person as he may direct, such allowance mentioned in this Part as may be appropriate."

These people were under the impression that when the pension was awarded the next of kin would qualify and now they are told that that is not so and that so long as the money was not actually being paid the relatives were debarred from getting the money. In this case it was the daughter. I think that is a case that the Minister could fix up without any legislation whatever. I do not want to give the name but the Minister will know who I am speaking about. Representations were made to the Minister by another Deputy and I think this is a case of very grave injustice.

This man lost his life in the service of his country. His mother applied under the 1953 Act and was going to be granted an allowance or, in fact, it was actually granted. Due to no fault of hers, but due to the delay of the Department, the money was not paid before her death and because the money was not actually paid, her daughter is now debarred from receiving this allowance.

These are just a few of the things I would like to point out to the Minister and I would ask him to take steps to have them remedied. As regards the case of the medal, I am told that the Minister was prepared to take the motion and deal with it and I was informed then a few days ago that the Minister was not prepared to take it. I think he will agree with the justice of the claims of these people. These people have been left for a long number of years through no fault of their own, but because of delay by the Pensions Board in dealing with their cases. Some of them who might not have been eligible for an allowance according to the Act might have qualified for a medal, but because they did not make separate application for that medal before the end of August, 1954, nothing could be done about it.

I would ask the Minister to see that justice is done in regard to these people. They are getting old and it is very nearly time that all this business was wound up. It is now over 30 years going on and I think the quicker it is wound up the better. I would remind the Minister that he promised that if he got into power he would deal with all these matters and see that the Old I.R.A. men and their dependents were properly treated. He has this matter in his own hands now and I can assure him that as far as this side of the House is concerned, anything he does to help these people will have our full support. I would also ask him to look into the question of special allowances. I could produce evidence of people who have been in receipt of a special allowance since the Act came into force but who are being deprived of it day after day.

General MacEoin

Were there any grounds cited?

Mr. Gilbride

In one particular case there were no grounds stated. In another case it was because the man's wife became of age for the old age pension. I do not know whether, when a woman comes to 70 years of age and is in receipt of a pension, that is sufficient cause for withdrawing the allowance. This man was in receipt of £80 a year and he was deprived of the whole amount. There is another case I know of where a man is in very bad health. His family are grown up and are out working. One young man is driving a lorry. He has to be fed and clothed and kept in that house and every Deputy will realise that when a young man hands his mother £2 or £3 a week there is very little profit from it at the end of the week. This young man I am speaking about is on the point of getting married and is trying to save up a few pounds and naturally that makes for a very difficult situation. I would ask the Minister to look into these problems and remedy the situation.

Mr. O'Leary

In regard to pensions for the Old I.R.A. men, year after year we debate this very important question. The Minister says there are 5,000 still waiting.

General MacEoin

There are more than that.

Mr. O'Leary

Where are they coming from? After all, the 1916 men are passing away; they are getting old and we still have 5,000 looking for pensions. There is one thing that Deputy Gilbride must remember, that only for the Act that was brought in by the Minister for Defence in 1949, a good many of the Old I.R.A. men would not have special allowances, to-day. They were deprived of them by the ex-Minister, Deputy Traynor, and his Party. I know there are genuine cases of men still deprived of them. In my own particular case when I made application I was turned down. I happened to be on a different platform from my colleagues; my comrades got the pension but I was refused as a person to whom the Act did not apply. These are the things I see as wrong. They have happened no later than in the past year, where the Referee went the rounds and political influence was used. If you were not a Fianna Fáil supporter you were deprived of the pension. In regard to the special allowance I had a case, the particulars of which I sent to the Department. This man was refused a special allowance; he was a man on crutches and to my mind was a deserving case, but he was considered ineligible.

As a I have said, many of the old 1916 men are passing away. There were very few towns actually involved except Galway, Dublin and Enniscorthy, my own native town. There are 1916 men in Enniscorthy who have no pension but who were imprisoned while other people who had not taken an active part got a pension through influence. I think that caused a serious grievance among Old I.R.A. men. The Minister met a deputation of Old I.R.A. men from my constituency not long ago. We were hoping the Act would be brought in for the benefit of people who deserved consideration. However, I cannot see for the life of me why 5,000 are still waiting, because if we had all those 5,000 in 1916 we would have swept the British Army out in a few days. As I said, the I.R.A. men were centred around a few places. We had them in the City of Dublin we had them in Galway and Enniscorthy Town. Those were the three principal places which took part in the Rising.

In my native town, we have men who have been deprived by previous Governments of their rights. These injustices existed to a greater extent up to 1949 and it is only under the Act of 1949 that some people belonging to the Old I.R.A. are enjoying their pension and special allowance. I would like to know why Deputy Kilbride, seeing that he is in the House over such a long period, did not raise these matters when his Party was in power and when these injustices still existed. In regard to some people from my town who complained not so long ago to the Minister of their grievances in regard to 1916 service, the Minister in his reply stated that he could do nothing until a legislative provision was brought in to cover them. Many of these people will be gone to Heaven if the Act is not brought in soon and no reward will have been given to them in compensation for their services to the nation.

They have been let down badly by previous Ministers for Defence with regard to pensions. The whole pension scheme was designed on a political basis, and, in the case of some who soldiered side by side during 1916, some got it and some did not, while people who took part in the civil war had no bother about getting it. There were more pensions given to people who took part in the civil war than were given to people who took part in 1916 and it was for the latter people that the Act was designed.

We had the same thing happening in the case of the Connaught Rangers, and in my town there is a man who took part in the mutiny in India who was deprived of a pension. He was almost shot in India for his part in the mutiny, but he could not get the pension, while other people who did not take any active part at all in it got through by the use of influence. I myself went before the Court of Referees and was put into the witness box. I produced all the documents and papers but I got a letter back from the Department saying I was not a person to whom the Act applied. There are probably people drawing pensions who should not be drawing them. Thank God, I do not want a pension, because I have my health and strength, but people who really deserve them should get them.

An Old I.R.A. man comes to your house and shows you a form. His special allowance is held up, and, when you get in touch with the Department, you get the usual reply that they are reviewed every year, which means that some of these men must wait two and three months before getting their allowances back. When a man undergoes a medical examination in Glasnevin and is passed for a disability pension or special allowance, it should be left there and should not be subject to review every year, with resulting anxiety to a man and his family for two or three months. The allowance has been granted on medical grounds and it should not be stopped for any review. Yet, the situation is that we are told that these special allowances are granted only from year to year. I suggest that the Minister should look into it and remedy that situation.

No later than this morning an Old I.R.A. man came in to me with his form. He asked me if he was being cut off. The form merely showed that he was to get £65 up to June, 1956 but, the poor man did not know what it was. There are men who are very sore because of the way they have been treated—genuine Old I.R.A. men who suffered terms of imprisonment, and were on the run. These men to-day have nothing, while they see others who prabably did not give as much service as they gave enjoying big pensions. It is giving rise to grievances and unhappiness amongst sections of the people.

The greatest scandal of all is that, when an Old I.R.A. man dies, his wife is thrown on the scrap-heap. All she can get is a non-contributory pension. In the case of British legislation, when such a pensioner dies the pension goes on to his widow and surely this House will look after the widow of an Old I.R.A. man instead of leaving her to live on a non-contributory pension or on home assistance. These Old I.R.A. men are dying out and there must be a saving every year for that reason.

As I have said, the system by which these allowances are subject to review every year is wrong and I urge the Minister to remedy that situation. There is no Old I.R.A. man to-day happy because he does not know whether this allowance will be taken from him next year. There is no security for him and the Minister should look into it, because, in a few years time, there will be very few of these Old I.R.A. men left. In the case of the widow of an Old I.R.A. man, because her husband had not got stamps, she is entitled not to a contributory pension but only to the mere pittance provided by a non-contributory pension. I am putting these facts before the Minister earnestly and in all good faith because these people should get the best the country can give them.

Mr. J. Flynn

I should like to refer to the point made by Deputy Gilbride about the medals and people in receipt of the special allowance, from another angle. I noticed that the Minister was inclined to query his statement. Down our way, people have been deprived of the special allowance on the ground that they were not eligible for the medal, in the first instance. I have no objection whatever to inquiries being put through all the proper channels, but junior officers, who are not conversant with the facts, have been asked to submit evidence in regard to these matters, while senior officers, men who had service with the applicants and who should know the facts as to their eligibility in the first instance, are ignored. I should like to see some review of the whole position being undertaken by the Department.

The point at issue mainly is that the men concerned did not have continuous active service or continuous service for three months prior to July, 1921. That is the qnalifying period, but who is the best judge of that? Is it the company officer, the battalion officer or the brigade officer? I have known cases where men have been communicated with who did not fall into any of these categories and their evidence was accepted. Is it not quite possible that there could be a miscarriage of justice in these cases, that a query could be sent up by some man with malice against a particular applicant? I am not saying that it did happen, but it could, and I would now, therefore, plead to have the whole position reviewed so that there would be a different approach to the whole question by the Department.

I tabled a question here some time ago asking the Minister if he were prepared to make a statement in regard to the men who applied for service pensions under the 1949 Act and in his reply he stated that that would be done when the present phase was completed. In a statement here this evening he said there are 5,000 cases to be considered and that it will take two years to complete consideration of these claims. Therefore, if the present phase were extended for another two years the Minister's reply to my question was a very safe one but a very forlorn and hopeless reply from the point of view of the men who will have to wait for another two years, who are already old men and who have to wait patiently for some decision or another.

As far as I can remember, the Minister made a statement during the last general election campaign that if a Government were elected in which he would be a Minister he guaranteed that he would introduce legislation dealing once and for all with all these cases and that he would have introduced a satisfactory measure guaranteeing that justice would be done to these men. I have no doubt that the Minister had the best intentions in the world but if it happens, as it is now happening, that he has to wait until the present phase is completed the men who accepted his statement in good faith during the last election campaign will be hopelessly disappointed.

There is one other point that I should like to raise before I finish and it concerns a question raised a few moments ago by Deputy O'Leary with regard to the widows of men in receipt of special allowances. I think a great case could be made on their behalf and I concur with every word which Deputy O'Leary and other Deputies have said on their behalf. I think something should be done for them. In reply to a question tabled by me on this point, the Minister said he had no intention of introducing legislation to improve their position. Despite that, I would like to appeal again to the Minister to consider their case because, as we are aware, and as Deputy O'Leary stated, they are thrown on the scrap-heap. They have nothing to come back on except a non-contributory pension and in every country in the world the dependents of men who are in receipt of pensions for services rendered to their countries are provided for in some measure. This is the least we could expect on behalf of the widows and the dependents of such men here.

Mr. Beegan

I did not intend to intervene in this discussion or to delay the Minister, but I feel I must do so because of statements made by Deputy O'Leary. He stated here, and I am sure he has stated this outside the House, that the pensions given during the Fianna Fáil term of office were given on political grounds. We have had statements of that kind made at various times and in respect of various Governments. I know there is no truth in that statement whatsoever. I know also that the boards appointed by the respective Ministers were composed of honourable men and that the Referees were honourable men and I am sure every one concerned understands that as well as Deputy O'Leary or any other member of the House.

Mr. O'Leary

I know the men.

Mr. Beegan

It is time to tackle this kind of misrepresentation because it is misrepresentation and I am not going to let it go unchallenged.

Mr. O'Leary

What does the Deputy know about my constituency?

Mr. Beegan

Deputy O'Leary said that he himself came before the board and was questioned as to his activities but that because he was not a Fianna Fáil supporter he did not get a pension.

Mr. O'Leary

Sticking out a mile.

Mr. Beegan

Through the Chair, I should like to ask Deputy O'Leary a question. Is he getting a pension now? If he was refused then, he had ample opportunity to appeal and have his case reviewed under the 1949 Act. I should like to ask him if he is now in receipt of a pension.

Mr. O'Leary

I did not appeal but your friends got them and I did not.

Mr. Beegan

That was the Deputy's own business. Perhaps he knew well why he should not get a pension—that there was nothing in his case. A great deal depends on what verifying officers can prove, on the board and the Referees, on what the evidence given in the first instance is. A great deal depends on the verification of the verifying officers and very often the verifying officers have an easy way out when they meet people of Deputy O'Leary's type who do not have a case. They say: "This is the best we can do for you" and they pass on the buck and the Referees and the board are blamed that the pensions were withheld on political grounds. Deputy O'Leary also mentioned that a number of old I.R.A. men would be getting special allowances were it not for the action of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Leary

I said some of them.

Mr. Beegan

I would like to remind the House that a provision dealing with the claiming of medals for service was brought in here in 1941-42 and that in 1946 an amending Bill was brought in which carried with it a pension for those who had received medals, under certain conditions of course, such as infirmity. It also carried the means test. That Act was improved in 1949 by way of increasing the amounts. Deputy O'Leary now tries to make the people believe through the newspapers that Fianna Fáil did nothing for the I.R.A. It was in fact Fianna Fáil who were responsible for enacting legislation to cover the 1916 men who were not provided for under the 1924 Act if my recollection is right. Why make statements of that kind and why bring in matters which make for acrimonious discussion in the House?

Mr. O'Leary

Because it is true.

Mr. Beegan

Why not state facts?

Mr. O'Leary

It is all the truth.

Mr. Beegan

Do we not all know very well that all Governments were inclined to do whatever they could for the old I.R.A. and why should they not? Were it not for the activities of those men we would not be here at all. A number of them have been overlooked because of defects in legislation but these defects should be pointed out and it should then be left to the good judgment of the Minister concerned and the Government of the day to have these defects remedied. That is what is being asked in this motion which Deputy Gilbride said the Minister would not accept. The Minister is here listening, anyway, and even if he is not accepting the motion I am very grateful to him for remaining here and listening to what has been said in regard to those people who made applications for service certificates and whose cases had not been decided until after the time had expired as in the case of applications for medals. Another aspect of the matter mentioned by Deputy O'Leary is that we had I.R.A. organisations all over the country who foolishly advised their members not to apply for medals within the stipulated period if by doing so it would be detrimental to their claims for military service certificates. In view of that, the Minister should examine the position and if at all possible he should bring in an amendment to cover those people.

In conclusion, I may say that of all the Acts brought in to help the Old I.R.A., to assist them in their old age and their difficulties and to show them some recognition for the, services they rendered, the 1946 Act, carrying the special allowances for those who had service in the I.R.A., was the best pension Act of the whole lot. There are people to-day drawing special allowances in their infirmity and old age who, if they had qualified for a military service pension, would not be getting a fraction of the amount they are getting as a special allowance.

Mr. Colley

I rise to support the points that have been made about the medals. It seems to me to be quite inequitable that men who hold the same medal should be treated differently. The question of the date, if it was going to be treated as sacrosanct, should have prohibited the issuing of further medals. It creates great dissatisfaction if men who get the same medal get different treatment as a result when they come into similar circumstances.

Undoubtedly, a number of men were persuaded not to apply for a medal on the ground that it would injure the claims they had then current for pension. I think we all know a number of men affected in that way. By the time they got the result of their application for the ordinary military service pension, they found themselves out of date in regard to applying for the medal. I do not see that there should be any great administrative difficulty in treating the application for the pension, whether turned down or not, as an application for a medal.

This whole question of dates is an old difficulty. The Minister himself, I remember, spoke very strongly about it and we all agreed with him. He has the opportunity now of trying to do something about it. We know his difficulties and what he will be up against. I suggest and plead to him that the former Minister made a good advance in the 1953 Act, although there were some things, like dates, in it that none of us liked. He might be able to persuade his Government to go a step further in removing some of the difficulties. There is no doubt about the great benefit that the special allowance has been to a number of Old I.R.A. men now reaching advancing years and who find themselves in poor circumstances. There will be unanimity in this House if such grievances as have arisen under this question—of some medals entitling a man to the special allowance and others not doing so— can be removed.

There is a further question in connection with the 1953 Act that I find cropping up, that is a question of dates again. It was general in that Act, as regards the pensions to widows, sisters and other relatives, that they had to apply within a year. I have found some cases in which the people did not even know of it until after a year. I suppose that for the most part, being womenkind and owing to the duties they have, they do not follow the papers and apparently were unlucky in that nobody told them. I know one case of a sister who, from what I know of the circumstances, would be absolutely entitled to the pension, but who did not know it until December, 1954— and I think the application should have been in by August, 1954. She applied to the Department and of course got the reply that the date was over and that the case could not now be considered. I know of some other cases, too, on the same basis but in this particular case I have mentioned I know the circumstances and there is not a doubt about the person being entitled to the pension. She is in poor circumstances and in bad health, which makes it a good deal worse. I would appeal to the Minister to see if he could do anything about that.

We all know that in all these cases of dates there had to be extensions to meet genuine cases in the past. I do not think there is any use thinking that the date in the 1953 Act will not have to be extended—any more than all the other dates—and I suggest and appeal to the Minister that it be done at once rather than wait for a few years, because in all those cases the people are getting older and getting very old in some cases. I suggest that there should not be any delay on it, if possible. If the Minister can succeed in doing away with the dates altogether, we will all be only too happy.

Mr. Hilliard

We can, if we wish, bring in the official records and quote back the Ministers' speeches on the 1953 Act and on some of the Estimates in regard to pensions, to show when people should be entitled to pensions. Quite recently, men who were preparing a case for the Minister, through the associated organisations of the Old I.R.A., quoted the Minister's speech and used it as an argument, that they were going to get immediately a rectification of whatever grievances they suffered in regard to service pensions, disability pensions and special allowances. I do not propose to go into that here to-night, but I want to deal with the administration of the special allowances.

There is no commencing date in the Act for special allowances. When a man applies he has to wait his turn before his case is dealt with by the Army Pensions Board, the medical board, and a decision arrived at as to whether he is entitled to a special allowance or not. I find that the special allowance does not commence to be paid from the date of his application. It is doubtful if payment commences from the date on which the board makes its decision that the man is incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity of body or mind.

I think I am right in saying that the Department of Finance enters into the question of the date from which the applicant is entitled to be paid his special allowance. When the social welfare officer investigates the applicant's means under the Act, if there is considerable delay between the date of that investigation and the date on which the Department of Finance or the Department of Defence decide that a special allowance should be paid, a second investigation into the applicant's means takes place. I do not think that that second investigation should be carried out. In several instances there has been a second investigation into the applicant's means. If a man applies for a special allowance and if the medical board is satisfied that he is totally incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity of body or mind—the words laid down in the Act—from the date on which he is examined or from the date on which he made the application, such person is entitled to and should be paid the special allowance and not from a subsequent date or a date which somebody in the Department of Finance or the Department of Defence desires.

I came across a case in which a man was subjected to a second investigation. Somebody, either in the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Defence, decided that the man was in receipt of 36/- a week National Health Insurance benefit. He had other income, of course, and this 36/-, that he was alleged to be in receipt of, put him over the appropriate sum named in the Act and he was refused the allowance. When the matter was pursued further it came to light that the man was not in receipt of 36/- a week National Health Insurance benefit. The Department of Social Welfare informed me that he had never been entitled to and had never been in receipt of this National Health Insurance benefit. I went back to the Department of Social Welfare for confirmation and that is the information I received.

The Department of Defence say that they cannot under any circumstances review the decision that was made by which this man was deprived of one year's special allowance as a result of a mistake made by somebody either in the Department of Defence or in the Department of Social Welfare. I do not think the matter should be allowed to lie. The Department of Defence say that they have no legal authority to interfere with the refusal. It is because of that particular instance that I rose to intervene in this debate.

I press the Minister to deal with the outstanding grievances of Old I.R.A. men. He will be hearing them soon by way of a deputation of the Old I.R.A. organisation. I understand that these people believe they will get a new Bill soon and will not have to wait until the 5,000 cases in which decisions are pending are concluded. They expect to get a new Bill this year. I do not know whether they will or not but, if the Government intend to deal with outstanding cases of grievances of the Old I.R.A. men, they should deal with them now and not wait for a year or two years.

General MacEoin

I suffer some disability this evening myself. I understood that on an Estimate it is not permissible to advocate legislation. I have had a surfeit of such advocacy. I understood that I could not advocate legislation in my opening remarks. Therefore, I do not intend to make any statement in that matter at the moment.

This Vote is always a very difficult one to deal with. Most of the comments I have heard in regard to the administration of the Vote I expressed myself time after time. There is only one view that has been expressed that I do not accept, namely, that there was any partisanship on the part of any Referee or board. I think the law was carried out impartially by the Referee and board at all times. The cases may not have been made as well as they should have been and there was wide scope for difference of opinion. I would not like to say that I had ever any evidence that the board was partial to any political side. I disagreed very often with the decisions. I disagree with them yet, I presume. But that situation will arise. I have tried to get a good board and I have asked them to expedite the cases.

The Minister has very little function in having cases speeded up. There were 1,598 certificates issued under the 1948 Act up to the end of May. There are now approximately 4,100 cases to be dealt with. That appears a very large number. A period of two years was the time named when I pressed the Referee and board to say about how long it would take to deal with them. I cannot express any view as to when or how amending legislation may be brought in or if it will be brought in, but I think everybody in the House knows my views on that matter without my expressing them here now. All I can say is that the promise that I made that justice would be done to every Old I.R.A. man, whether he fought with me or against me, as far as I am concerned, will be honoured to the full and there will be no question about it.

A question was raised about the allowance. I am not so happy about this special allowance and the medal, but before I proceed I want to say that in my opinion—this view is not taken by the legal people—an application for a military service pension automatically meant an application for the medal. I argued with my predecessor that an application for the major included the minor, that the greater included the lesser. That view is not taken. I do know that many applicants and many people who have service did not apply for a medal because they were convinced that by doing so they would lessen their claim for a certificate of service. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 6th July, 1955.