To resume at the point at which I broke off, this man, a former member of the Connaught Rangers, found himself in a concerntration camp in France. He was allowed to write to me to certify that he had been engaged in the struggle for independence. His sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. It was the second time he had been under sentence of death.
I mention these matters so that the Minister and the House will appreciate what condition this man was in mentally when at last he was discovered some place in Russia and was subsequently extradited. He committed some trivial offence and as a result his pension was taken from him. I am sure that if the district justice had known the full circumstances of this unfortunate man, he would, in his wisdom, have imposed a shorter sentence.
If this man had been represented by a solicitor or had had legal aid, it would have been pointed out on his behalf that he was in receipt of a military service pension and that a sentence longer than three months would mean the withdrawal of that pension. Unfortunately, he was not legally represented. Nobody knew anything about his case until he had served the sentence and then apparently it was too late to make representations.
I know the Minister is a humane man. I appeal to him to bring the matter of this unfortunate man before the Government with a view to the restoration of his pension. He is now in the winter of his life. His poor health can be imagined. I beg that the case of this man who gave such loyal service to the country and whose actions were deserving of every possible good that we could give him will receive sympathetic consideration. I trust the Minister will see his way to have inquiries made.
I am certain, as I say, that if the district justice had known the position he would not have given him the extra few weeks that involve such hardship for him now. He has been without a pension for many years. His financial and physical conditions are now much worse. He has been punished very severely for his offence. I feel confident the Minister will restore his pension and help him to tide over the most difficult period of his life.
Deputy MacEoin referred to the means test in respect of special allowances. It is the one means test I never liked. I ask the Minister to have it re-examined in relation to the claim of a pensioner's wife for the old age pension. It is hardly fair. The State gives a pension at 70 years of age to the old woman to help her to exist. I fail to see why that pension should be assessed as means when her husband claims a special allowance. It would be well if the Minister would act soon as there are bound to be changes in the near future—on 1st January next. It would be well if the Minister would forgo that part of the means test in the interim.
I have long experience and I find that, while many of the social welfare officers are reasonably fair, some are carried away. There appears to be some mystery as to how they decide on an estimate of means. I am told that some of them estimate means of £104 against people and others estimate means of £130. Married and single applicants are treated thus. Such social welfare officers should have their heads examined.
If I give particulars of specific cases to the Minister, I trust he will ascertain if it is true that the social welfare officer assessed means to the extent we are told he did because, as a result, the applicant is debarred from a special allowance. In one or two cases I know of, the social welfare officer should have his head examined. There is a sum of £2 12s. for free lodging. I do not think free lodging should be associated with bona fide Old I.R.A. I appeal to the Minister not to refuse a military service pension to a genuine member of the Old I.R.A. I have no sympathy whatsoever for men who pretend they were in the Irish Forces. I am jolly sure some of them were not. Some of them hung their stockings up for Daddy Christmas. We know that others were refused.
I would ask the Minister to be very careful before he refuses a military service medal in respect of a genuine old I.R.A. man. I know very well that spite and jealousy have played no small part in the recommendations, whether in respect of a military service pension or a military service medal. Spite played a great part—personal spite more perhaps than even political spite. Few elements of political spite are to be found but we know that such is not the case in regard to personal spite. I would ask the Minister to ensure that if an old I.R.A. man loses his medal or was refused a medal, he will have the right to appeal to some body set up by the Minister before whom evidence can be heard. Let the green-eyed monsters who are responsible for preventing a man getting a medal to which he is fully entitled come out into the open on oath and stand over what they did secretly.
We hear again that a person did not qualify because of the fact that he was not active in the three months before the Truce. The period of three months before the Truce is a very difficult period to assess. I can assure the House that the activities in this period were not as great as people think nor was it easy to be active. Even if the person in question had to transfer his place of residence or work to some other area for safety purposes, as long as he remained a member of the I.R.A. he is fully entitled to a military service pension.
We have a number of certifying officers, some of whom I know personally. They could not think of what happened last week, not to speak of what happened 40 or more years ago. I have personal experience of that. A minute inquiry should be made, and, if necessary, the Minister should appoint a few members of his staff to hear orally the evidence for or against in cases where certain people are refused. It is bad enough—indeed it is very bad—that a man cannot wear a medal to which he is entitled but it is much worse that a man who was a bona fide member of the I.R.A. is refused a medal. In other words, you are telling him that he was not in the I.R.A. at all.
I want to deal with the matter of special allowances, especially in the case of a man who was turned down on the grounds of means. The Minister should give that man the right to appeal. I do not refer to medical grounds because if the medical board turns him down, that is good enough for me. I do not doubt the board in any way; I am sure they are impartial. If they find that a person is incapacitated, they will have no hesitation in saying so, but in regard to means, some of the estimates are purely imaginary and I think the person should have the right of appeal.
There are members of the Garda and the Army, too, who were in the pre-Truce I.R.A. who unfortunately did not make their case sufficiently well to get a military service pension. I know that military service certificates were awarded under the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924 and 1934. Those people were entitled to pensions. It is fair that persons not in possession of certificates under the Military Service Pensions Act who satisfy the Minister that their service was such as to merit the award of a pension, had they made application under the Acts, should be awarded pensions. The trouble is that an application now is too late. That is a hardship on many of these. I take it that the Minister will arrange that in such cases he will entertain applications from them, in view of the statement of the Minister for Justice some weeks ago. Up to now, only a member of the Garda or Army had a bar to their military service medal but it looks as if that factor is much more important now.
I think the Minister should give special consideration to men who are 100 per cent. disabled. Nobody is more deserving of sympathy than those unfortunate men. There are not many of them left now. Unfortunately their number is getting smaller. They had their glorious hour. The days of many of those old soldiers who helped to obtain freedom for this country are practically gone. I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the question of giving a higher pension to those men who are 100 per cent. disabled. They are not able to do anything now as they are too old.
Freedom costs very little. There are other countries in which freedom costs countless millions but it cost us very little in this country and if we hand over to posterity a little liability, we make no apology for it because we hand over to them something which is priceless, something which money could not buy and something which future generations, when they come to realise fully what it means, will appreciate.
I do not see any good reason why the widows of men in receipt of pensions under the 1937 Act are not granted further facilities. Every year the Minister or his predecessors made some improvement and I think that little improvement is well deserved. It is long overdue. The widow of a 1937 pensioner ought to be as near and dear to the State as a pensioner under the Acts of 1923, 1927, 1932 or any other Act of Parliament.
I congratulate the Minister and I thank him for the courtesy with which he has always received deputations or members of this House when making a case for a bona fide old I.R.A. man.
With regard to dependants' allowances, the case is very difficult to prove. It is very difficult for people whose brothers were killed 40 years ago or perhaps more to prove dependence. They are old themselves and probably some of them are not too enlightened on legal matters. There are not many left now. I think very few have been turned down and I would ask the Minister to reconsider favourably the question of making it easier for some of these dependants to get the pension. That will give them the same comfort at least as they would have had if their brothers had not given their lives for this country. I know that as far as the Minister is concerned we are knocking on an open door in our desire to promote the welfare of those soldiers of the Republic.
