It might facilitate the discussion and shorten the proceedings if the Minister would indicate the precise effect of each section.
Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The purpose of Section 2 is to enable allowances to be paid under Section 7 or 8 of the 1923 Act to the widows and/or children of a deceased person, even if they were not totally dependent on the deceased. Up to this, total dependency had to be proved. Section 7 and 8 of the 1923 Act relate to dependants of persons who were killed while serving in the Irish Volunteers or Citizen Army, or who were killed while serving in the Forces between the 1st April, 1922 and 30th September, 1923, inclusive, and persons who were wounded while so serving and died within four years as a result of the wound.
Up to now, widows and children must have been totally dependent in order to be eligible for an allowance. There is no such provision in other Acts. For example, in the 1932 Act, that provision of having to prove total dependency does not apply. We are bringing the 1923 Act into line with that, in that respect.
Will the Section operate retrospectively or from the enactment of the Bill?
The allowance will be paid only from the date of the enactment of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This is really the same thing, in respect of the Act of 1927. I can tell the Deputy, if he wishes, what the Act of 1927 is.
No, it is not necessary.
This is bringing it into line.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Prior to the Army Pensions Act of 1946, married pensions did not consist of separate elements for the wife and children, but consisted of a flat amount. A man's entitlement to a married pension, if his wife died, continued for as long as he had a child of the marriage under the prescribed ages— irrespective of whether or not the birth of such child took place before the date of discharge from the Army. In the event, then, of his death from his pensionable disability, his children, irrespective of when they were born, would be entitled to orphans' allowances by reason of the fact that he was a married pensioner at the date of his death.
In the Acts of 1946 and 1949, the basis of married pension was altered to a sum for the wife and a sum for each child born not later than nine months after the date of the father's discharge from the Army. Thus a situation could arise where a pensioner under the Acts of 1946 or 1949, his wife having died and the children in respect of whom married pension was payable having reached the prescribed age limits, would cease to be a married pensioner, but would still have children under the prescribed age born later than nine months after his discharge. In the event of his death from the pensionable disability, these latter children would not be eligible for orphans' allowances — because their father was not a married pensioner at the time of his death—although similarly circumstanced children would, under the earlier Acts, be so eligible. The purpose of the section is to remove that anomaly.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
It is a general principle that married pensions or allowances will not be granted unless marriage took place before, in disease cases, the date of discharge from the Forces or, in wound cases, the date of wound. The purpose of Section 5 is to maintain this principle and to make it clear that it applies to any of the concessions granted in Sections 2, 3, or 4 of the present Bill. Even without the present section, we think that it would be held to apply, but this is a precautionary measure to make that definite.
That means that if a person marries subsequent to disability, the widow gets no pension?
In the case of disease, subsequent to date of discharge from the Army; and in the case of wound, subsequent to the date of the wound.
If the disease were attributable to Army service—say he contracted tuberculosis subsequent to the date of discharge, arising out of Army service—would the widow get a pension? If it occurred subsequently—say a discharge this month and it occurred in six or three months' time—would a pension be payable?
No. It is only if it is previous to the date of discharge.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
This is the question I explained about, the "appropriate annual sum" in special allowance cases. Up to now, a person married after the 1st October 1942 is treated the same as a single person for the purpose of special allowances, that is to say, the appropriate annual sum was the same for the purpose of special allowances. We are removing that now and the "appropriate annual sum" will be the same whether the marriage took place before or after 1st October 1942.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Section 7 is the same as Section 5. It does the same thing in regard to this.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This is a new provision?
Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1953 provides for allowances higher than the normal in respect of dependants of persons who had pre-truce service and who died in circumstances attributable to 1916-1923 service. A new category of dependants is being added here—a permanently invalided son, or a permanently invalided unmarried daughter, provided the invalidism developed during childhood before the age of 18 in respect of a son and before the age of 21 in respect of a daughter. They were not included in this up to now. They are being brought in for the first time in this.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This section extends the time limit for applications under Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1953. The time for applications was twelve months from the date of the passing of the Act and we are extending that for a further period of twelve months. We know of 37 late applications. They could come in now—and there may be others.
This is the usual extension?
It is the first extension in this one.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
The purpose of this section is to enable a person with pre-truce service to claim a married pension by reason of the fact that he was married before the 10th December, 1932, where he was not able to make the claim within the twelve months allowed in the 1953 Act, because he had not at that time got a disablement pension.
We know of only one such case. As I explained on the Second Reading, it is the case of a man who had a disability pension prior to the 1953 Act but during the 12 months when applications were in order he had not got a pension because his disability had fallen below the percentage which qualified him for it. Subsequent to the expiration of the time limit, his disability increased and he once more became eligible for a pension, but he was late then to apply for the married pension. We are providing here for that case and other such cases if they arise in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill".
This is a case of interpretation. In Section 49 of the 1953 Act there was an amendment to Section 12 of the Act of 1927 to enable certain cases to be reopened. In doing that, other cases were unintentionally ruled out and that is being rectified now.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with the same point as Sections 5 and 7—the principle, in respect of married pensions, of the marriage having to take place before the date of the wound or discharge.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
This section brings in children adopted under the Legal Adoption Act to qualify in the same way as normal children of the marriage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
These all follow from other matters. The definition of the appropriate annual sum, for instance, has to be replaced because of changes we are making here.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
This Bill was desirable because of certain anomalies coming to light in relation to the administration of the Department of Defence. I regret that there was not included in it something that would clear away the anomally as brought to light recently in the case of an F.C.A. officer who suffered injuries in course of duty and, consequent on the injuries he received and the settlement in the civil action that resulted therefrom, the Department of Defence felt that they should hold against that award a certain charge in relation to the loss of services of that officer.
That would be understandable in the case of a regular Army officer, but at the time that regulation was put on the Statute Book it was intended to protect the Minister and the Army from the loss of service and time of a regular Army officer for the period he had been incapacitated. At that time there was no thought whatever of bringing into being a force such as the F.C.A. It is an anomaly and it is inequitable that such a regulation should be invoked to deprive a man who suffered very serious injuries of some of the money for which he settled in compensation for the injuries he received while on voluntary duty in his capacity as a voluntary officer of the F.C.A.
At this stage I should like the Minister to say that he would re-examine this position and see if an ex gratia payment or some such arrangement could not be made to remove this anomaly. It would have been still better if, in the course of this attempt to bring the legislation up to date in relation to Army pensions, such an anomaly were removed in relation to the case I have quoted. Let us hope that such a case will not occur again but it is within the realms of possibility that the circumstances may be repeated. This occurrence and the manner in which it has been dealt with have caused much serious loss and mental anxiety to the unfortunate officer and his family.
As Deputy O'Sullivan knows, that case has been in fact re-examined. What happened was that this man made a settlement of the case without reference to the fact that the Department of Defence had a claim for expenses. That should have been included in any settlement. That is how the difficulty arose in this case. In any case, the only provision is for an ex gratia payment. The position we are in is that we had a claim, just the same as the person concerned had, for the expenses of his treatment in the military hospital. We have to go ahead with that. The claim was settled without any reference to the Department of Defence and that is what the difficulty is about.
I should like to say——
This is the Fifth Stage. However, I do not want to stop the Deputy raising a small point.
It is a small point, Sir. I would bring to the Minister's attention that all this matter was very protracted and the person concerned is a young man who could not afford to wait any longer. He had to sell his farm and defer his marriage arrangements consequent on the injuries he received. Had he waited much longer this unfortunate man's whole life would have been disrupted by the considerable delay. In those circumstances he was forced to come to some agreement.
I would ask the Minister in all sincerity to consider that this is an instance in which the regulations might be relaxed. There is great concern amongst this man's fellow officers. I want to put it on record that the attention he received in the military hospitals was excellent. But it is a fact that after he was discharged from his rank as an officer in the F.C.A. he had to incur treatment in order to get the use of his limbs restored and this treatment cost him several hundred pounds. This fact should also be borne in mind. The charge that would be levied in the case of a regular officer in relation to loss of time and service should not apply in the case of a volunteer officer.
The cost of treatment should have been included in the award of compensation.
Question put and agreed to.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.