Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1957

Vol. 163 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

In the absence of the Minister for Defence, who is slightly indisposed, I have been asked to act on his behalf.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill, as Deputies will see, is mainly concerned with the grant of increases in disablement pensions and wound gratuities, and in certain allowances and gratuities to dependents of deceased persons, payable under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1953. The increases are effective from 1st August, 1956, and in fact are being paid since that date on the authority of a Supplementary Estimate for pensions passed in this House on the 25th July, 1956.

I should perhaps explain that under two previous Acts—the Army Pensions (Increase) Act of 1949 and the Army Pensions Act of 1953—disablement pensions and allowances under the Army Pensions Acts were increased generally in accordance with the scale of increases which was applied to other classes of State pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950.

The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, has in the meantime authorised further increases in these classes of pensions with effect from the 1st August, 1956, and Part II of the Bill now before the House authorises increases—on the same basis and with effect from the same date—in the pensions and allowances mentioned in the various sections of the Bill. The scale of increases —which extends from 15 per cent. on pensions under £100 to 6 per cent. on pensions of £450 or over—is set out in Sections 3 and 29 of the Bill. These percentage increases apply to the original rates as later increased by the Army Pensions (Increase) Act of 1949 and the Army Pensions Act, 1953.

The Pensions (Increase) Act of 1950 —that is the one dealing with civil pensions—applied the principle that no pensioner whose pension was directly related to his pay could receive an increase which would bring his pension above what it would be if his services terminated on the 31st October, 1946, and his rank and service in that rank were the same as on the actual date of his retirement.

That principle was followed in the Army Pensions (Increase) Act of 1949 and in the Act of 1953 in the cases— and they arise only for officers—where pension is computed as a percentage of pay. The same principle has been embodied in the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1956—that is the Act dealing with increases in civil pensions— except that the critical date is the 1st November, 1952, which was the date of a general pay increase both for civil and Army personnel. Consequently the same principle with the new date has been embodied in this Bill in relation to any pensions of the type concerned. Pensions which are expressed as fixed rates are increased as set out in the tables and Schedules in the Bill and they apply irrespective of the date of termination of service.

Another general matter to which I should refer deals with the increases of pensions of £450 or over. Up to this no increases were given where a pension or aggregate of pensions amounted to £450 or more. Moreover in the case of a pension so near to £450 that the grant of the appropriate increase would bring it above that figure, the increase was limited to such amount as would bring the pension to £450 and no more. That restriction, or ceiling as it became known, is not repeated in this measure with the result that pensions of £450 or more will receive an increase of 6 per cent. However, the increases— as I mentioned earlier—apply to the pensions as payable under the previous Acts so that the effect of the previous ceiling must be taken into account before the rates of increases now authorised are applied. This position is achieved by Sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Bill.

Married pensions, that is pensions payable to married men in addition to basic disablement pension, are being increased by a flat 35 per cent. instead of the 25 per cent. authorised in the Army Pensions Act of 1953. These married pensions vary in such a way that it is not practicable without creating anomalies to include them in the scale of increases which apply to the basic pensions.

Gratuities payable to wound pensioners, and gratuities to widows and other dependents of deceased persons to whom the Acts apply, are being increased by approximately 75 per cent. These gratuities have not been increased hitherto and the percentage increases now being authorised are therefore higher than those applicable to the pensions and allowances. Certain educational allowances which were not previously increased are now being increased as well.

The estimated total annual cost of the increases provided for is £23,330 and the necessary provision has been made in the Army Pensions Estimate for the current year which has already been approved by this House.

Part III of the Bill consists of miscellaneous amendments and I shall deal with these now.

Sections 31 and 39 amend the Acts by relieving the Minister for Finance of certain functions which he exercises in relation to the making of grants of pension, etc. At present the consent of the Minister for Finance must be obtained before a grant of pension, allowance or gratuity is made under the terms of the Acts. The amendments embodied in Sections 31 and 39 will remove the necessity for such consent and in future grants will be made solely by the Minister for Defence.

Deputies will recall that the Minister for Defence introduced a similar measure recently in respect of awards of service pension under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts to former members of the Permanent Defence Force. That measure and these amendments now are part of a general development between the Department of Defence and the Department of Finance aimed at improving administration by removing requirements which are not really essential from an Exchequer point of view but which involve time and administrative procedures which would not otherwise be necessary. The Minister for Defence is, of course, bound by the terms of the Acts and the interests of the Exchequer will in no way be adversely affected. On the contrary, official time will be saved and more expeditious clearance of cases as they arise will be possible.

Section 32 provides a new scale of percentages of pay for calculation of pension in the case of an officer of the Permanent Defence Force who retires on or after the date of the passing of the Bill and who may qualify for a pension under the 1923 Act, i.e., in respect of a wound received before 1st October, 1923. This arises from the introduction of consolidated pay for officers and follows what was done in the 1953 Act in relation to other pensions.

The next matter dealt with is that of special allowances and various aspects of these are covered in Sections 33,36 and 38. I shall begin by referring to the fact that the latest date at present laid down for an application for a service medal which, if granted, renders a person qualified to apply for a special allowance, is 5th August, 1954, i e, 12 months after the date of the passing of the Army Pensions Act, 1953. This latest date has been extended from time to time in the past in response to pleas that deserving cases were ruled out by the operation of the previous time limits.

Section 36 moves forward the date to one not later than 12 months after the date of the passing of this Bill. The prescribing of latest dates for applications generally gives rise to criticism and views are put forward that there should be no closing dates at all. These views do not take cognisance of the fact that over 35 years have now elapsed since the Truce in 1921 and that as time passes it is more difficult to get satisfactory evidence one way or another on the claims made for service medals. I feel, therefore, that in the interests of proper verification a closing date must be specified and that the new one now provided for goes as far as can reasonably be expected.

Anyone who has not yet applied and who considers he is entitled to and wishes to apply for a service medal in respect of continuous membership during the period of three months which ended on the date of the Truce, i.e., 11th July, 1921, should make his application without delay, but in any case within 12 months from the date of the passing of the Bill. Since the last closing date, i.e., 5th August, 1954, over 3,000 applications for such medals have been received in the Department and these will be validated by this section in so far as the time limit for applications is concerned and no renewal of such applications will be necessary.

Section 33 deals with the position which arises when, in the case of a person already in receipt of a special allowance, his entitlement to the medal on which his eligibility for the special allowance is based, is impugned by later evidence. If in such a case the Minister ceases to be satisfied that the medal was duly awarded, then the special allowance is of course stopped. This section gives the Minister clear cut legal power for that step and it also enables him to restore the special allowance if further later evidence should substantiate the original claim to the medal. The section operates as from the date of the passing of the 1946 Army Pensions Act which introduced the service medal as a qualification for special allowance.

Section 38 also deals with special allowances and makes two changes in the existing position. It removes the obligation placed by Section 43 of the Army Pensions Act of 1953 on a special allowance holder to notify any improvement in his means since they were last investigated on the Minister's behalf. Experience of the operation of that section since it was introduced has shown that for legal and practical reasons it has been largely inoperative so that its removal is desirable. In future reliance will be placed on the normal departmental investigation to bring any improvement in means to notice as the most practical way to meet the situation. The other change effected by Section 38 of the Bill is to apply in effect the terms of Section 50 of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, to prosecutions. This provides that a prosecution for an offence under the section may be brought within six months after the date when the evidence to sustain the prosecution came to the notice of the Minister for Defence.

Sections 34 and 35 relate to allowances payable under Part II of the 1953 Act in respect of certain deceased persons who had pre-Truce service. Section 34 gives power to the Minister for Finance to review and alter an opinion reached by him in certain cases and to grant an allowance if he should be of opinion that the applicant should be treated as a dependent of the deceased. Section 35 extends the time limit laid down in Section 6 of the Act of 1953 for applications where an applicant died before a decision was reached on his claim and where another relative then wished to apply. The position in this respect at present is that the second relative might be ruled out under the existing time limit before in fact he would be aware of his eligibility to apply.

Section 37 arises primarily as a consequence of the amendments in Sections 31 and 39 which do away with the necessity for the consent of the Minister for Finance to the grant of, among other things, a gratuity to a relative of a person who dies in certain circumstances before an award of a pension, allowance or gratuity is made to him. This involves the repeal of Section 12 of the Act of 1949 and Section 44 of the Act of 1953. The section adapts the provisions of those repealed sections to the new circumstances and also extends the benefit of the earlier provisions to the case of a disablement pensioner who dies after the expiry of one award and before a further award has been made. In such a case a gratuity equal to the amount of the pension which would have been due to the date of death will, as a result of this new section, be payable to any of the relatives mentioned in the section. The section becomes effective as from the 1st November, 1955.

The foregoing is an outline of what is contained in this measure and I trust that it will have proved helpful to Deputies in their understanding of it. If there are any further points on which information or explanation is required I shall endeavour to deal with them when I am concluding.

General MacEoin

As the Minister has stated, the purpose of this Bill is to give effect to what is already in operation, and we have no objection to that. The Bill is an improvement upon the existing position. It is not all that I desire but I take it as an instalment and hope for better at some future date. It will not be the last Bill although I should like to see the last Bill. It is rather difficult, even with the Minister's speech and explanation, to get down to hard facts as to the sort of cases it will affect. Generally speaking, I am satisfied with the measure, and I am anxious that it should go into operation as soon as possible.

There are a few points upon which I should like to express my appreciation. One is the new departure by the Department of Finance whereby the Department of Defence has not to go back to Finance to get financial sanction for the provisions of the Bill. It is a tribute to the high standard Defence has been able to establish, that they have been able to secure the confidence of the Department of Finance in relation to this try-out. Let us hope it will be a real success.

The extension date for application for the medal is restricted to one year. Goodness knows it is, in a sense, long enough but it is rather hard at the same time that, if for any reason a person did not apply, as a result of this sort of legislation he is prevented from applying. However, the members of the force have had ample time to apply if they wanted to and the fact that the Minister is now accepting that the 3,000 applicants who were late need not apply again is a very forward step and a very great advantage to the people involved.

I would appeal to all old committees and similar bodies who are in touch with the Old I.R.A. to make this effort to wind up this matter once and for all. The difficulty of certification is becoming greater every day. As the Minister very properly pointed out, nearly 40 years have gone by and it is becoming rather difficult to remember everything. It is a problem but I would suggest that, if a company captain and the officers are not available, the battalion officers, or any person who has already certified service in the company area, should swear an affidavit, and that that would be taken as sufficient verification—that is, where the company captain and the first and second lieutenant are dead, gone away or not traceable.

There are Old I.R.A. men in the district who hold a military service certificate and if they are prepared to make sworn affidavits in respect of members of that company between 1st April and the 11th July, 1921, the Minister should accept that. If it were possible to get battalion or brigade officers to certify service it would be all to the good, but it is rather hard with the time lag that has taken place between the time the award was questioned and the granting of it afterwards. I would remind the Minister of the old saying: "A thing that comes quickly comes twice", and I would err on the side of the applicant.

Of course, as the Minister is aware, and as I am aware, there were and there are such grave abuses that it is very hard to rectify the matter. I am glad the Minister is dealing with the problem and although I do not say that this is the best way to do it, it is better than no development at all. The difficulty of attestation is very severe. It is my view that the Minister should have also taken power, where a certificate of service was withdrawn and that evidence becomes available that it should not have been withdrawn, to refer the case back to the referee, or to review the case himself. Where a certificate of service was withdrawn and where it is not possible to come before a referee, but when evidence becomes available that the person was entitled to the certificate, I think the Minister should have taken the power to restore it.

I am glad the Bill has been introduced. I regret this was done at the last moment. However, I felt to-day that it would be a pity to leave it over until we sit again in October. Therefore, I felt we should deal with it to-day, and I ask the Minister and the House to give it a speedy passage.

Mr. Gogan

I welcome this Bill as I would welcome any Bill introduced to improve the lot of Army pensioners and to alleviate the circumstances of the Old I.R.A. I think it should be emphasised to people outside that this is not a Bill to increase pensions but to legalise pensions that have been paid during the past 12 months. I think the time that has elapsed since these pensions became due would justify a little more generous treatment than it is proposed to give the pensioners in this Bill.

I welcome the provisions in Section 36 which extends the time limit for applications for medals. I also am glad to see the provision made in that section for the payment of allowances to the holders of medals. This provision will affect many hundreds of Old I.R.A. men. I regret that in all of the pension Acts so far introduced no provision has been made for the dependent children of Old I.R.A. men killed in action. Speaking in the Seanad in December last, it was alleged by the then Minister for Defence that some such provision was taken out of the legislation in 1932. I would ask the Minister if, to his knowledge, any such provision ever existed. At this late hour, I do not wish to delay the House, but I would ask the Minister to give an assurance that in the very near future such provision as has been made for Army personnel would be made for Old I.R.A. pensioners. I would ask if it is the Minister's intention to introduce any such legislation during the coming session.

Mr. J. Brennan

I, too, welcome the Bill. While I shall not discuss what is not in the Bill, I do hope another time will come when provisions we would desire to see enshrined here will be forthcoming. The question which has perplexed every member of the House over the years is that of the awarding of special allowances to the holders of duly awarded medals. I do not know what the experience of other Deputies is, but I know that the delays in most cases were exasperating. In many cases the applicants had died before their cases were finally considered.

It is a sort of reflection on holders of medals that at one stage it was agreed medals were not, in the terms of the Acts, duly awarded. I think it is a pity that all medals awarded were not regarded as having been duly awarded. If we can do anything now to expedite decisions on cases where decisions are pending, in spite of the difficulties that may arise with regard to certification, we would be doing a good job. Some people wonder why medals were not applied for at the time when the first piece of legislation awarding them was enacted, but when one reflects on what the position was at that time, one can more easily understand why applications were not submitted earlier.

To my knowledge, many people who applied for military service pensions and for certificates, and who were refused, became disgruntled and were hesitant about applying for medals. Many of them refused to apply, considering that it was an insult that some emolument had not been awarded by way of military service pension. It later transpired that the medal carried with it a special allowance award to persons qualifying under the means test. Then applications were submitted, but it was found that this question of the duly awarded medal created another vexed question which annoyed many holders of medals.

Between one thing and another, these Acts have proved to be the most controversial pieces of legislation ever introduced here. The result was that many did not bother applying for medals until they found themselves compelled by circumstances to seek whatever benefits they might derive from one or other of these Acts. There were, consequently, a big number of applications submitted after the appropriate date. That is easily understandable when one considers the controversial matters surrounding these Acts.

General MacEoin

Quite a number of people thought that when they applied for the certificate they would get the medal as well.

Mr. J. Brennan

That, too, was probably a reason for their refusal to apply. However, they should have realised later on that that was not the case. Applications were accordingly withheld in many cases. At the time people were not too pleased with the manner in which their original applications were treated.

With regard to certification, my experience is that the Department have now become so difficult that very many cases are waiting to be cleared up. Certification is being sought from persons whose whereabouts are unknown and some of whom are dead and gone. So far as I am aware, and I can speak with an open mind on this because I do not have the privilege of being a member of the Old I.R.A.— through no fault of my own but because I was not born soon enough —they are not accepting certification from junior officers who are available where the senior battalion or brigade officers are no longer available. I still think that in view of all the cases that have been heard by the board to date we should now be in a position to compile certain authentic information on all major operations that took place in the country during that time. Having that done in proper form, in a manner which would satisfy those who were in charge at the time, they would have compiled for themselves a good reference work which would make it easy to go into the various cases that might be presented to them now.

I believe that the board have found much conflicting and contradictory evidence in the course of their duties and perhaps that has made them sceptical in dealing with a good deal of the information that has been placed at their disposal, but I think they should be able to arrive at acceptable information, authentic information if you like, some form of definite information with regard to the different operations in which people claim to have taken part. The same applies in every county and every battalion area. Applications for medals cover these different operations and I thought it would be possible in the Department at this stage to have had that information compiled in a manner that would at least be a good guide and enable officials to expedite the proceedings.

General MacEoin

The medal is for membership.

Mr. J. Brennan

In so far as duly awarded medals are concerned, the board probes and seeks certification from the various officers whether company, battalion or brigade. I speak subject to correction, but that is my experience. In fact, at the moment, I find it is most difficult to secure the necessary verification that would satisfy the board in considering cases that have been undergoing investigation for months and months without any hope of a decision yet being reached. That is possibly due to the board awaiting a return of the forms which are sent out to certify the membership of the applicant. These forms may not be delivered at all; the persons to whom they are addressed may not be available; they may be dead. I have known that to apply in certain cases where it was most difficult to find any of the people who could verify in regard to the applicant. Consequently, cases drag on indefinitely without a decision being reached.

I think a good deal of the blame lies, perhaps, with the surviving officers themselves. If they got together with the courage of their convictions and made a definite ruling on who was and who was not a member of any organisations which qualified for the award of medals during that period, it would help considerably. It is well known that abuses have crept in and naturally that has put the board on guard. They are wary of statements reaching them with the result that it has now become rather difficult to get a decision. That might be overcome with proper co-operation between the board and the surviving officers and we would at last have reached the stage where these difficulties can be smoothed out. I think it would be much more serious if one man were left without a special allowance which was due to him than that two doubtful cases should be given allowances that possibly were not due to them.

The means test is too rigidly enforced. It is rather difficult to see why pensions have been refused in some cases. We know of people who have been practically destitute and when they secured a pension or some little allowance and were able, say, to put on their small farm a few head of cattle that they could not previously afford, their means were reviewed and the ownership of the cattle was held against them because of the means test. I read the letter from the Coláiste Caoimhin here, about a man whose special allowance was drastically reduced and who was made pay back money which was held to have been overpaid because he did not make known his improved circumstances, and his improved circumstances were that he had a premium bull from the Department of Agriculture.

Petty things of that sort are ridiculous and a sensible investigating officer would not take cognisance of them at all in reviewing a case. I think the Minister would be meeting the wishes of the House if he made it clear to those responsible for reviewing or investigating cases that they should not go into such details as finding out the number of eggs produced by a few hens or whether the man had two cows instead of the one he had when his original application went in. I do not think such things really reflect an improved position in that man's means in such cases, especially among the small uneconomic farmers.

It is quite easy to understand that if a Government sets out to operate a squeeze or a so-called economy drive it may become a popular thing for those who are responsible for investigating cases where social welfare or other payments are being made, to attempt to popularise themselves by showing the savings they can effect but it would, I think, be a greater economy if these men were dispensed with altogether thus saving the salaries paid to them and allowing the men drawing a few pounds for their remaining years, which are shortened by the service they gave to the State, to continue to enjoy the few pounds they get after all the difficulty they had in securing it.

The moneys paid to ex-members of the old I.R.A. are definitely not being paid to any other section of the community and are payments which are diminishing year by year. They are entirely different from Army pensions which will continue so long as the Army exists. These pensions are diminishing year by year as the last volleys ring out over the graves of the Old I.R.A. men. If we are accorded our allotted span, within our lifetime the day will dawn when we shall have them with us no longer and no longer will it be necessary to make an appeal here on their behalf.

Any Deputy, irrespective of whether he himself was or was not an active member, should always be ready to support anything which will bring any amelioration in living to those who made the sacrifice in the past, by improving existing legislation and providing them with better benefits. I hope I am not being presumptuous when I say that I trust we shall have further legislation at a later date to make provision for some of the things for which I would like to see provision made and which are not covered in this Bill,

I compliment the Minister on introducing the Bill and, like Deputy MacEoin, I am sorry that it is being introduced so close to midnight because there is so little time to discuss it properly. At the same time, it is better that it should be enacted now rather than that we should wait until the autumn because the benefits it confers will be available earlier to those who seek them.

Micheál Mac Cárthaigh

Níl fúmsa mórán a rá i dtaobh an Bhille seo. Molaim go mór é agus molaim an tAire a thug isteach é. Rud amháin a bhaineas leis an mBille go dtugann sé deis do dhaoine cur isteach ar an liúntas speisialta. Iséard atá i gceist agam Alt a 36. Nuair a bheas an Bille ina dlí againn, beidh sé de chead acu sin a bhfuil an bonn acu chur isteach ar an liúntas speisialta agus é a fháil ach na gnáth-choinníollacha eile a shásamh. Má tá moladh ag dul d'aon duine i ngeall ar an Alt sin a bheith sa mBille, tá moladh ag dul don Teachta Eoin Mac Giolla Bríde. Dhá bhliain ó shoin d'iarr sé ar an Aire Cosanta a bhí i réim an uair sin, an dlí d'athrú agus a leasú ar mhaithe le Sean-Óglaigh na hÉireann agus Cumann na mBan le go mbeadh sé ar a gcumas a gceart a bhaint amach.

Gheall an Teachta Mac Eoin, nuair a bhí sé ina Aire, go gcuirfeadh sé an deis sin ar fáil do Shean-Óglaigh na hÉireann agus Cumann na mBan.

Le cúnamh Dé, ní fada go mbeidh sé ina dhlí, agus, más maith, is mithid.

Tá an chuid is mó atá le rá i dtaobh an Bhille ráite ag an Teachta Seosamh Ó Braonáin.

Molaim go mór an tAire agus an Rialtas as ucht an Bille seo a chur ar fáil agus as ucht na breiseachaí a thabhairt dóibh siúd a bhfuil cuid mhaith déanta acu ar son na hÉireann.

Mr. Gilbride

I welcome this Bill, especially in relation to Section 36. It is now practically two years since I drew the attention of the former Minister to the need for this provision and, even at this late hour, I am glad that the Minister is bringing in this measure. Like Deputy MacEoin, I would like more time to discuss the Bill but, as he said, "he gives twice who gives quickly and with a goodwill".

Section 36 confers the right on anyone in possession of a medal to apply for a special allowance. I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to giving the same increases to the Old I.R.A. pensioners as are given to other sections but in these stringent times I suppose the Government and the Minister could not see their way to making more provision. Or do they think that these special allowances will offer compensation?

It is now thirty-five years since these activities took place and the majority of those concerned will be automatically entitled to the special allowance before very long. I expect that was in the Minister's mind and, for that reason, he did not think it worth while giving any further increases to that particular class. For that reason, I hope that he will be more generous in the award of this special allowance.

On the special allowance, I should like to point out that certification is very difficult in a great many cases. The rules of the Department and their implementation appear to be rather strange. I came across a case a short time ago where an individual applied for a medal and gave the names of the officers in the area who knew him and could, therefore, certify. Notwithstanding that, a person 40 miles away got a circular asking for certification, a person whose name had not been given and who knew practically nothing about the applicant. I regard that action as being a way out for the Department to say: "We made inquiries and the people did not reply." Such people cannot reply because they know nothing about the individual concerned. The Minister should look into that. The people in the immediate vicinity are those who know and they would be the proper people to certify.

I came across the case of a man who was awarded a special allowance of £126. His wife was in receipt of an old age pension. When the husband reached 70, the two pensions were immediately taken into calculation and he now finds himself reduced from £126 to £31 odd. That is very unfair. It is unfair that at one fell swoop a man should find his pension reduced by close on £96. I appeal to the Minister to look into that. I think it could be remedied by the Joint Directions.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. Unlike another speaker, I cannot see that there will be further legislation along these lines because, at this time of day, we should be coming to the end of legislation as far as the Old I.R.A. are concerned. I am sorry the Minister could not see his way to giving the same increases to the Old I.R.A. as he is giving to other classes. I take it we shall have to live in hope.

Major de Valera

I have not had time to digest the contents of this Bill completely. I understand, in connection with certain other parts of the Military Service Pensions Code, there have been cases of failure to apply within the time. Legislation was brought in in 1953 in respect of widows and dependents of soldiers who died under circumstances of service and the people immediately involved who had recently been the victims of bereavement directly through service. I understand there were other people who would have come under that category but for the time limit that was prescribed. They are not very numerous but I have one case in mind particularly. It can hardly be done here tonight but I should like that that point would be considered and I can make the case more specifically to the Minister afterwards.

Mr. Traynor

The main purpose of this Bill is to bring about the authorisation of increases which were provided, I think, last August. Another purpose is to extend the date for the application for medals, which would provide for those who were in need of special allowances an opportunity to apply by reason of the fact that they were holders of a military service medal.

In the course of the discussion which has taken place on this Bill a number of statements have been made which I do not think could be described as accurate. First of all, I should say that, as far as the question of verification of these applications is concerned, the delay is attributed, apparently, more to the Department than to the people who have been given as vouching authorities. In fact, the failure rests mainly with them. I have experience of Old I.R.A. officers who were written to to verify the service of particular individuals and I know that the persons were alive and well and capable of replying to the communications addressed to them. Nevertheless, they failed to reply. The Department must await verification by the persons whose names are given as vouching authorities.

A period of perhaps a month is allowed to elapse before the vouching authority is again communicated with and, if he again fails to reply, I do not think it is fair to ascribe the delay in dealing with the application to the Department or its officials. It is due, in the main, to the failure of the persons written to to reply.

I am glad to say that that does not happen generally, but such delays do occur. While many replies are received only after continuous reminders from the Department, they are received but the delay is usually ascribed to the Department when, in fact, it rests at another source.

The question of the examination of an applicant's means does not rest with any of the officials of the Department of Defence. The examination of the means of a person who is in receipt of a special allowance rests with a special officer, not an official of the Department of Defence, and he makes his report and it is on his report that the decision of the Department is made.

I would suggest that Deputies who think that the special allowance is something to which people are automatically entitled, irrespective of their means, should read the terms upon which a person can secure a special allowance and they will see that the special allowance was originally introduced to prevent what a number of Deputies described as destitution. Any Old I.R.A. man who was described as being in that situation was aided by the introduction of the special allowance and that is all it was originally intended to do. It appears now, as a result of usage, to have gone much further than that and now we are being asked to take a more lenient view in respect to the means of the individual and to hand out special allowances ad lib.

The officers who have to examine these claims are public servants. Their responsibility is to the State and they cannot recommend that special allowances be given to people who are not entitled to them. They are acting in a public spirited manner in this matter. When Deputy MacEoin in the course of his speech referred to the tribute which the Department of Finance was paying to the Department of Defence by eliminating the necessity of the Department of Defence referring matters to the Department of Finance, that was due to the very fair but, nevertheless, strict examination which these officials were giving to claims made by individuals. In other words, these public servants were ensuring that public funds would not be paid to people who were not entitled to receive them. The special allowances have gone very much further than it was originally intended that they should go. They have been improved, both from the point of view of their value as money, and from the point of view that a number of strictures which originally obtained have now been removed.

It may be of interest to members of the House that the following items are now disregarded in the calculation of means: (1) Free maintenance in a hospital, sanatorium or county home, (2) free maintenance by a relative or friend where the provision of such maintenance represents a hardship on the provider. Every Deputy interested in this matter knows that, at one time, if a relative sustained a member of his family in receipt of a special allowance, that sustenance was taken into account as being valued at so much. For example, the keep of a man would be valued at 25/- a week and, where he was entitled to receive 30/-, he was only getting 5/-. That maintenance by a relative or friend is now being disregarded.

Other items being disregarded are: (3) home assistance, (4) gifts of a bona fide charitable nature, (5) one-half of the amount received by way of national health insurance or sickness benefit, (6) children's allowances. I think these matters have brought an extra value to the special allowances which, in some cases, are very much higher than service pensions payable to Old I.R.A. men who were awarded pensions for active service. Also disregarded is (7) any payment made on or after the 17/7/51 in respect of pension under the Old Age Pension Acts, except in the case where the applicant and his spouse are in receipt of such pension, when the amount of the pension payable to the spouse is taken into account. That, I take it, was the point to which Deputy Gilbride referred. Another item disregarded is (8) the first £30 of a military service pension or disability pension or combination of both where the applicant is under 70 years of age and (9) the profit from transferred property where the Minister is satisfied that the property was not transferred merely for the purpose of qualifying for special allowances.

Those are some of the points that make a special allowance of very much greater value than it was originally intended it should be. Special allowances have increased now to such an extent that they provide what might be described as a reasonable provision for men who, through infirmity or other reasons, have reached the stage where they must apply for special allowances. I must point out that people who are in receipt of special allowances, and who did not prove to the Referee that they were entitled to a service certificate, are in receipt of sums very much in excess of that received by members of the Old I.R.A. who were awarded active service certificates for their services in the field.

Deputy Gogan asked whether any Act prevented a child from being eligible for a pre-truce allowance. There is no Act, as far as I know, which prevents a child from receiving that particular allowance to which he was referring. We all know that when a child of an Old I.R.A. man who was entitled to that allowance, reaches the age of 16, the allowance granted to the child ceases on its attaining that age. There is no Act which prevents an eligible child from receiving that allowance before it reaches the age of 16.

With regard to verification for medals, verification will be accepted from any officer who is in a position to give that verification. It is not necessarily confined to any one, two or three individuals. It will be accepted from junior officers. Some of the speakers referred to the fact that there were junior officers who could verify. If they are in a position to verify, their verification would be taken into account.

I think that the discussion has been a very reasonable one. Somebody suggested that perhaps other things could be done at another stage. Deputy MacEoin himself said there would be other days when a matter of this kind could be discussed again. If the necessity should arise for further improvements of one kind or another, it can always be brought forward here by an amendment of the Act. I have no doubt that if such a necessity should arise the Minister concerned would be prepared to bring in legislation dealing with it.

Question put and agreed to.