When concluding last night, I reminded the House that, over the years, the reply of the Minister for Defence to any question as to why a person was refused or granted a military service pension was that he could not do anything about it, that the decision of the referee was final and binding. That position has always remained. We get this unique and, as I said last night, very dangerous situation in which the Minister, under the cover of making financial provision to pay certain increases, avails of the opportunity to insert Section 2 of this Bill to correct what he says are errors in two cases and that he is to constitute himself a referee calling up two of the previous assessors.
He says in his statement that Section 2 of the Bill is designed to provide power to correct errors which have been made by the referee in setting out his findings in respect of two applications. He said that the referee, while intending to make an affirmative report, made a nil report. I think that the Minister should have given us more information as to how that could happen. He told us that, in the ordinary course of events, the system would have prevented such errors occurring but he does not tell us how the error did occur. He does not tell whether it was due to the speedy manner in which the referee dealt with the cases, whether it was through illness or the circumstances in which this happened in these two cases.
Over the years, several Ministers for Defence were satisfied that the referee made a wrong report. One of my predecessors, the late Dr. O'Higgins, was satisfied in 1948 that previous referees had made errors in the reports and although the previous Government had suspended all action on the Military Service Pensions Act, he brought in an amendment to the Act enabling all the people, who felt they had been refused a certificate and that they were entitled to one, to apply again. A new referee and assessors were appointed.
I do not know who those two people are. I am not to be taken as opposed in any way to their getting what they are entitled to. I want that to be clear but they had already been refused before. They were refused prior to 1948 and, under the amending Act, availed of the opportunity to appeal. The Minister tells us they applied under that Act in 1950. That means that it took eight years. In 1958 the referee decided the cases. He then made a nil report again where the Minister now says he should have made an affirmative report.
I want to remind the House that the referee in making an award takes up the chart in front of him and he signs for the period Easter week 1916 for which there are six years' service. He sets out 100 per cent. of that time or one and three quarter time. If the applicant was out three days and could establish three days' service, he gets three years and he puts down a half. If he was out one day he puts down a sixth of the period. He does not write "Yes" or "No". He does not write "affirmative" or anything else. If he has no service, he writes the word "nil". He does that for each period down to and including 1923.
How could the referee sign a nil report where he intended and where the Minister assures us he intended to make an affirmative report? The Minister has not told us. It would make my position much easier if he showed how this could happen because what happens now is that the Minister is constituting himself a referee. He is to call the two former assessors in to sit down with him. For what? To concur in what he is doing.
Would it not have been much simpler for the Minister to appoint a new referee if he was satisfied that a very grave injustice was being done in these two cases and let the case be re-examined by the referee and the assessors? Why does he do it only in two cases? I am sure that, during the time the Minister is there, he has had several reports from people in whom he has confidence that there were applicants entitled to certificates of service who did not get them. I am certainly sure that behind him in those benches there are Fianna Fáil Deputies who said they were satisfied beyond "yea or nay" that A, B and C were entitled to certificates of service and for some reason or another the referee gave a nil report when we think he should have given an affirmative report. They made the case to the Minister on that and the Minister said that was true but the referee did so and so. That is final and binding.
In this case the Minister is now to constitute himself the referee in two cases without telling us why. I would respectfully suggest that this is an amendment to the Military Service Pensions Act. When he decided to put forward this amendment, he should then have examined the files; I think he should have honoured the pledge I gave in this house that when the present phase, the last phase of the referee and board of assessors was concluded, a new amendment to the Military Service Pensions Act would be introduced, and that he would now, even at this late stage, define "service," what they are entitled to get for each period and everything like that, so that each applicant will know what he has to prove. Since the military pensions system was adopted in 1924, up to the present day, no old I.R.A. man, be he officer, N.C.O., or other rank, knows what he has to prove. It has been a case of hit or miss during all that time.
I myself remember being with the board of assessors under the 1924 Act. I was called in as a witness in Longford Military Barracks when a very prominent officer in the Old I.R.A. came in to prove his case. The Chairman asked him for his identification and then asked: "For the period April 17th to March 31st, 1918, what did you do?" The applicant replied: "Everything," and replied with the same word for each of the periods 1918, 1919, 1920, up to the period between April 1st, 1921, and 11th July, 1921. Then the bottom of the form was filled in with the one word "Nil." I was looking at all this and I said: "Wait a moment—did I not see you take part in such an attack on such a night," and the applicant replied "Of course you did." Were it not that I was present, that applicant would have left, not knowing about the "Nil" report at the bottom of the page. In other words, if an applicant was able to make his case, he was all right, but if not, he was sunk.
When this amendment was being introduced by the Minister he should have availed of the opportunity—when he found there were grounds for this decision; when he felt he was justified in bringing in this amendment—to say: "My predecessor promised that when this phase of activity of the board of referees was finished, he would amend the Act. I now propose to do so and, as a first step in two cases in which I have complete evidence, I shall ask the Dáil for authority." That is, if he wanted it, and I doubt if he did Only a small amendment would be necessary to extend the date of the operations but now this extraordinary step is taken. In view of that, I should like the Minister to give the information I seek as to the circumstances in which it came about that the referee made such an error. What is the evidence that he made such an error? Was it through winding up in a hurry? Was it through illness or what were the circumstances in which it happened?
As I say, I feel that a very dangerous precedent is established in this Bill by the Minister taking to himself the power to act as a referee in two cases, because, beyond question, there are hundreds of other cases in which a review should have been made but was not made because the decision of the referee was final and binding. I do not want to impede this Bill. I do not want to do anything to embarrass the Minister or the Government in any way, but I feel it is such an extraordinary step that the Minister should tell us the circumstances. If he does not do that, then I am afraid we shall have to divide on the Bill and have another day's work on it.
