Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1960

Vol. 185 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Amendment of Military Pensions Legislation: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
In view of the facts that a large number of persons at present in receipt of Military Service Pensions receive less than £1 per week, that the services of these people played no small part in the foundation of the State and that their numbers are now appreciably reduced by the effluxion of time, Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the past services of these people should be more generously recognised and calls upon the Government to introduce forthwith amending legislation to ensure a reasonable standard of living for them in their declining years.— (Deputy Tierney.)

Nuair a bhíos ag plé na tairiscinte seo an oíche faoi dheire do dheineas tagairt don am nuair a bhí mórán des na Sean-Óglaigh ag troid ar son na tíre, ag obair ar son na tíre, nó i bpriosúin, ó mhíle naoi gcéad is seacht déag agus ar feadh sé nó seacht de bhlianta dá n-óige, agus dá bhrí sin tá morán díobh aosta faoi láthair agus ag fágaint a bpostanna le pinsin níos lú ná mar is ceart.

Ina theannta sin, tá chuid díobh ina gcónaí lena muintir agus sa dlí a tugadh isteach chun cabhrú leo, ní féidir leo an liúntas speisialta a bheith acu toisc go bhfuil siad ina gcónaí lena muintir.

Go deimhin, ba cheart rud éigin a dhéanamh anois ar son na ndaoine ag a bhfuil níos lú ná punt sa tseachtain; cuid acu gan ach cúpla scilling sa tseachtain acu, mar níl mórán díobh fágtha anois. Tá mórchuid díobh imithe ar shlí na fírinne. Dá bhrí sin, ba mhaith linn rud éigin a dhéanamh chun cabhrú leo, ach níl fhios agam an bhfuil an tairiscint seo oiriúnach chun rud mar sin do chur i bhfeidhm. Tá fhios agam, mar a dúras an oíche faoi dheireadh, go bhfuil eolas againn go léir go bhfuil an deacracht sin ina aigne ag an Aire agus go bhfuil sé toilteanach i mo thuairimse rud éigin a dhéanamh más féidir é a dhéanamh.

When discussing this motion last week, I made reference to the fact, of which everyone in the House is aware, that the Volunteers in their time spent a number of years fighting for the cause of freedom, working for it in special ways, or in prison, and in consequence some of them in the public service are retiring on smaller pensions than they would otherwise have received. In some cases they have a small military service pension which shows that they were active Volunteers and whenever they were allowed that pension it could not count, of course, for a pension in the public services.

Apart from that, the scattered remnants of the old I.R.A. at present are deserving of our financial support. An effort was made to provide for those who were in necessitous circumstances by bringing in the Special Allowances Act which, I think, was welcomed by everyone but, unfortunately, the means test attached to it is such that many deserving people cannot benefit and the reference made in this motion—that the Government should introduce certain amending legislation to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the Volunteers in their declining years—may not be necessary. That, perhaps, could be done by regulation—the question of adjusting or amending the means test. If a man provided a residence of his own, a little cottage or something like that, he would be entitled to draw the allowance but there is a figure of £3 or some such figure counted against him in his own home as free maintenance.

I think that there are many aspects of the Act, as it applies, that should be reconsidered. I know that the Minister is very anxious to do something for those who have service pensions of less than £1 per week, but the difficulty is how to do it equitably and in accordance with the laws and regulations at present in existence. I am sure the Minister has already given consideration to the matter but, at any rate, there is a request from those of the old I.R.A. organisations now left to give special consideration to members with small weekly or monthly amounts.

I believe members on all sides would like to give that recognition to the survivors of the fight for freedom. They spent a great part of their young lives, risked everything they had, lost opportunities perhaps, in many cases, of providing good careers for themselves in life and some of them had to take the emigrant ship. Others had to fit into whatever positions were available at the time. We should all cooperate in trying not to drag on this question any longer but, instead we should try to finalise it now because in a few years it will not be necessary to consider it. Few, if any, will be left to avail of whatever amendments may be made in the laws now applying to them.

There is nothing further that I need say beyond renewing the appeal to the Minister to consider favourably acting on the lines indicated in the motion or introducing legislation or making regulations so that those who did so much against great odds to attain our freedom would not be deserted by the few comrades who are left in their declining years.

Níl fhios agam cad a spreag an Teachta Ó Tighearnaigh chun an rún tairisceana seo a chur os comhair na Dála, ach, pé ní a spreag é, chuir sé a mhéar thosaigh ar chneá atá ag chreimeadh ae na bhfear atá ag iarraidh corp agus anam a choinneáil le chéile ar screapall beag suarach ná cothódh "Pangur Bán" an tráth ba neamh-ocraí dó.

Má bhreathnaímid go cruinn ar gach Acht Pinsean a reachtaíodh san Oireachtas ó 1924 anuas chífear dúinn gur dáileadh na pinsin, ní hamháin de réir seirbhíse ach de réir gradaim nó céime chomh maith. Tá ann Grád "A" dóibh siúd go raibh mórchéim acu sna hÓlaigh agus tárlamh ó £200 go breis agus £300 ag gabháil leis. Ansin tá "B" agus laghdú pinsin ag gabháil leis. Ina dhiaidh san tá gráid "C", "D" agus "E". Bhain na hÓglaigh Singil, na "Privates", go léír leis an ngrád deireanach seo "E" agus sin agaibh na "Panguir Bhána" a sheas taobh le taobh leis na hOifigigh ab airde céim i ngach cath agus luíochán. Admhaím gur tugadh ardú dóibh i dTiachóig na bliana seo agus cúpla babhta roimhe sin, ach cad is fiú ardú de réir cúig nó sé fén gcéad do dhuine go bhfuil £20 nó faoina bhun aige?

Dúirt me sa Teach seo cheana go raibh na Sean-Óglaigh ag imeacht amhail duilleog na gcrann san Fhómhar. Is beag lá nach bhfoilsítear bás duine díobh sna páipéir. Chímíd a gcomrádaithe ina seasamh ag béal na huaighe. Cloistear fuaim na bpiléar, airítear óráid mholta—de ghnáth ní mholtar go n-adhlactar, ach, faraoir! B'fhéidir go ndearnadh faillí orthu lena mbeo. Tá siad siúd fé chré-chuilt, ach cad mar gheall orthu súd atá linn fós? Maidir le cuid aca féadfaí a rá gur oidhrí ag Eoghan Rua iad tráth dá ndúirt sé:

"Ní hí an aindeise is measa linn ná

bheith thíos go deo,

Acht an tarcaisne a leanann í

ná leighisfeadh leoin"

nó mar a dúirt Cathal Cicam i dtaobh an tSíothchánaigh iar bhfilleadh go hÉirinn dó:

"Im'fhánaí bocht neamh-airdeach ag Siúl na sráideanna bím,

D'éis pinsin bhig bheith caite 'gam Bíonn an ganntanas am' chloí,

Ach ó cheanglas d'ár dtíoránaigh Ní thaispeánfad m'aghaidh go deo

I measc na gcomharsan ngrámhar I Sean-áitreabh Aherlow".

Níor cheangail na hÓglaigh singil seo leis an Tíoránach ach le Róisín Gheal na Fáilbhe, is cé nach bhfuil cás a bhformhór inchurtha le cás an tSiothchánaigh, tá an saol ag rith ar chuid acu.

Nílim chun puinn tagairt a dhéanamh don alúntas speisialta óir tuigtear dom nach dtagann sé faoi réim an rúin seo. Samhlaítear domsa gurbh fhusa do throd dul trí chró snáthaide ná d'óglach, fiú amháin le teastas mileata agus pinsean, teacht faoi chuing an alúntais de dheasca an teist maoine agus rachmais.

Tá 6,000 ag fáil an alúntais.

6,000, an ea? Is aoibhinn liom sin a chlos ach dearcaimís air mar seo. Abair go raibh trí nó ceithre mhíle óglach sa troid, ach, an mó míle a bhí ar fionraí fé gharbhshíon an Gheimhridh agus faoi bhrothall a tSamhraidh nuair a bhí na trodairí ina suan? An mó míle a bhí ag briseadh droichead; ag réabadh bóthar; ag bailiú feasa agus ar síorfhaire dóibh siúd go raibh gléas troda acu? Fágaim mar sin é.

Mar fhocal scoir, molaim rún an Tighearnaigh agus iarraim ar an Aire méid a shuime agus a mheasa ar na Sean-Óglaigh a thaispeáint dúinn.

There are very few people in this House and in the country who do not agree that, if possible, the old soldiers of the Republic would get a well deserved increase. Motions of this kind are always subject to the suspicion that political kudos may be the ultimate aim rather than benefit for deserving people. I am glad to say that there are many in this House who served the Irish Republican Army and I am certain that there are many good spokesmen yet who will agree with me that if and when this country can afford more the men so well deserving of recognition will get it.

It is difficult to say that any Party or any Government could do more for the soldiers of the old I.R.A. than the present Government. There is no doubt in my mind that we are knocking at an open door in so far as the present occupant of the Ministry of Defence is concerned. Although a young man, he is fully appreciative of the fact that the men of the old I.R.A. and the women of Cumann-na-mBan, backed as they were by a then united people, a fearless and courageous people, were one generation in 700 years. It is quite true to say that every generation for 700 years had had registered protests against foreign occupation of this country but it remained for the men of the old I.R.A. to ensure that the enemy had to get out of this country whether they liked it or not. They were tough times, trying times. Many thousands of people occupied the jails and dungeons of this country.

Many thousands went through the hardships of fighting an enemy; though they were badly armed and had no reserves of any great account behind them. The actual number on active service, that is, whole-time men, brigade staffs, divisional, battalion and company staffs, was 5,456 on the 11th July, 1921. The numbers in jail were very considerable. It is quite true to say they were neglected until 1934 and unfortunately many of the men who should have qualified for pensions did not take it seriously enough. There were many cases of men who were unable to give correct dates and whose officers were killed or went to other countries. Many of those who should have qualified for military service pensions did not apply either through shyness or through being over-conscientious when they had to take an oath or, as I have said, because their officers were not there to verify for them.

There was another reason, too, why some persons did not qualify. There were some cases where men were deliberately denied their service because of jealousy, either political or personal. It was a shame and a disgrace and the people responsible for it will go down to their graves as men who have been traitors to their own comrades because of jealousy, political spite or something of that kind.

The former Minister knows that is perfectly true. I can truthfully say I have never yet and never will deny any man his right no matter what his political affiliations were and no matter what side he took in the Civil War. Even in cases of personal enmity I have never failed to verify a person where necessary. I mention this because even at this late hour it might be possible for the Minister to have an investigation into certain cases.

I should like the Minister to consider seriously the question of giving at least a gratuity to many of the men who were refused military service pensions. Even a small gratuity would assuage the feelings, which were hurt no doubt, of those men who gave good service but were turned down through no fault of their own. As I have urged on many occasions, I now appeal to the Minister to consider these marginal cases and, where justified, to give a gratuity of even £10 or £20 a year covering the years of service to the country.

Very often it was not the men who pulled the trigger who freed this country. Without the men who guarded the flying columns, without the men who carried the despatches, who made the dug-outs and knocked down the bridges, our freedom would never have been achieved. The men who knocked down the bridges, a major operation, when there was no hope of blowing them up were indispensable. They risked their lives in knocking down bridges leading to important military strongholds of the armed forces of occupation.

I have every confidence in the Minister. My experience has been that wherever there was a doubt he gave the benefit of that doubt. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the granting of a small gratuity to the gallant old soldiers who were refused full recognition or who did not prove sufficiently well that they had the military service demanded by the board. Very often the divisional and brigade officers had no knowledge whatsoever of the service of these men. The special allowance granted to old I.R.A. men has been unquestionably one of the greatest boons to my old comrades. In the winter of their lives it is good for them to know they are not without some recognition, and fairly substantial recognition, and that they will not die in any of our city homes because of financial circumstances.

While I am greatly in favour of the special allowance to men who deserve it, I abhor the fact that many men who were never in the Irish Republican Army are now in receipt of special allowances. Once they are, it is very difficult to take them from them. It is disgraceful and it is up to every member of this House and every former member of the I.R.A. to ensure that the fraud will stop. It is painful that men who would not be even of numerical value are in receipt of £80 or £90 a year. I do not know how their consciences can help them to enjoy it.

The same applies to some Cumann na mBan members, although there were some splendid girls who would perhaps have qualified for service but who did not make application. It is hateful and will not be easily forgotten that people who are not entitled to pensions are getting them here, there and everywhere. The officers who verified for them have a lot to answer for. They might as well steal the money as certify that So-And-So was a member of the I.R.A. and fully entitled to a military service pension, and append their names to something which was false, dishonest and disreputable. That has brought more disfavour on the old soldiers of the Republic than anything else. It has left a worse taste in their mouths than anything else. I refer to this getting of special allowances by people who are not entitled to them. I believe these special allowances were one of the best things ever given to the old soldiers. But they should be respected. They must be dealt with honourably. Otherwise we shall have discredit brought on certain men who in the past were immune from trickery or fraud. Unfortunately, some few have loaned themselves here and there to a certain course of conduct. Fortunately cases are exceptional. But even one is too many. One in a brigade is too many. One in a division is too many.

I believe we are knocking at an open door. I know that when the economy of the country will permit it better pensions will be given. There have been substantial increases over the years. When the economy of the nation permits it further increases will be given. These men have never been forgotten. It would be catastrophic if they were forgotten. There are people who will claim, I know, in the years to come that by some miraculous method of theirs this country gained its freedom. Let us never forget that the credit for freeing this country rests with the officers and men of the Old I.R.A.

There is no necessity for a motion of this kind at the moment. This Government has never ignored the demands of the old soldiers. All through the years better pay and better pensions have been provided for them. There was an increase of 5 per cent. in the last Budget. There was an increase in the previous Budget. The increase may appear small, but small sums mount. Deputy Tierney should withdraw this motion now. Many of us on this side of the House and many on the other side of the House will never forget the old soldiers. It is an unjust criticism of a Government that has done so much for the people concerned to move this motion here. It almost amounts to a vote of censure. It is the Minister's responsibility to cater for our soldiers, old soldiers and serving soldiers, in a manner worthy of Irishmen. I know that there are grievances here and there and I appeal to the Minister, if he can at all, to alleviate the hardships suffered by some of the old soldiers who were refused military service pensions. I sincerely hope he will try to do that. If he would even give them a small gratuity, that would indicate that they had service of no small measure. I hope the young people, particularly the young Deputies here, will always appreciate that it was not the people who passed pious resolutions who freed this country but rather the soldiers of the I.R.A., whose numerical strength was no more than about 50,000.

Rinne an Teachta Seán Mac Cárthaigh tagairt do dhuine go bhfuil pinsean Seirbhís Míleata aige nó go raibh seirbhís aige ins na h-Óglaigh agus go bhfuil post aige go bhfuil pinsean ag gabháil leis. Dubhairt sé go bhfuil daoine mar sin imthigthe ar phinsean nó ar tí dul ar phinsean agus go bhfuil an pinsean sin níos lua ná mar do bhéadh marach gur thug sé seirbhís 'sna h-Óglaigh toisc nár tógadh na blianta sin 'san áireamh maidir leis an bpinsean ón phost.

Poinnte suimeamhail é seo agus geallaimse féachaint isteach ann chun fághail amach an mar sin atá an scéal i gcásanna áirithe. Táim cinnte i gcás Stát Seirbhíseach, ar chaoi ar bith, nach mar sin atá. Tugadh do Stát Seirbhísígh mar sin na h-árduighte páigh a bhéadh le fágháil aca dá mba rud é nár briseadh a gcuid seirbhis ar cor ar bith, agus chomh maith leis sin cuirtear na blianta sin san áireamh maidir le pinsin do ríomhadh.

Ritheadh Acht speisialta i 1936 chun na socruithe sin do dhéanamh. Chomh fada agus is eol dom, is mar an gcéadna atá an scéal maidir le daoine atá fostuighte ag na h-údaráis áitiúla. Níl fhios agam cé eile atá i gceist ach geallaimse féachaint isteach sa cheist agus más ceart do'n Teachta. Mac Cárthaigh, déanfad iarracht an scéal do leigheasú.

Rinne an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh tagairt don slí mar leagadh amach na grádanna éagsamhla de phinsin de réir an céim 'sna h-Oglaigh a bhi ag an duine i gceist agus an seirbhís a bhí aige. Ba ceist don Mholtóir amháin é sin agus ní fheicimse go bhféadfaidh sé an scéal do réithteach i gceart gan an dá rud sin do thógaint san áireamh. Is fíor gurab é toradh sin ná go bhfuair gnáth óglaigh go raibh seirbhís maith aca pinsin beaga—ach ní raibh leigheas air sin.

Deir an Teachta nach gá méadú ar bith a thabhairt dos na grádanna níos aoirde. B'fhéidir go bhfuil sé sin fíor ó thaobh caighdeán beatha dhe, ach ní fhéadfainn aontú leis an tairiscint sin. Ba ceist don Moltóir é na pinsin éagsamhla do shocrú agus má shocruigh sé sin pinsean níos aoirde a thabhairt do dhaoine áirithe ná do dhaoine eile, ní bheadh sé im thuairim ceart ná cóir dhuinne an bhreith sin do chur ar ceal. Mar sin, pé árdú a tugtar dos na pinsin ísle, caithfear árdú i gcoibhneas leis sin a thabhairt dos na pinsin níos aoirde. Ní ceist simplidhe í mar sin na pinsin ísle d'árdú go £1 sa tseachtmhain nó do figiúr ar bith mar sin.

Dubhairt an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh chomh maith go raibh sean óglaigh ag iarraidh maireachtain ar phinsin de £13 sa bhliain. Ní h-aon maith bheith ag caint mar sin, mar níl pinsinéir Seirbhís Míleata ar bith ag brath ar phinsean beag mar sin amháin. Tá scéim na Liúntaisí Speisialta ann agus tá na Scéimeanna Leasa Sóisialaigh ann chun cabhrú leo.

Aontuighim leis go bhfuil deacrachtaí ag baint leis an liúntas speisialta d'fhághail, ach níl aon dul as sin. Chaithfidh conaghiallacha bheith ann agus caithfear gach cás a scrúdú chun bheith cinnte go bhfuil na coinghiollacha sin comhlíonta. I dtosach báire, chaithfear bheith sásta go raibh an seirbhís ag an iarrthóir agus de réir mar a imthigheann na blianta is ag dul i ndeacracht atá sin.

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Aire, ach rinne mise tagairt do na daoine a bhfuil an Teastas Míleata acu agus atá ar phinsin níos lua ná £1 sa tseachtain.

Chomh maith leis sin, más rud é go bhfuil an iarrthóir fá bhun 70 bliain d'aois, chaithfear bheith cinnte nach féidir leis slighe beatha do bhaint amach dhó féin de bhárr mí-chumais buan éicinnt. Ceist do Bhórd Phinsin an Airm é sin agus níl aon amhras go mbíonn deacrachtaí annsin uaireannta ach caithfear bheith cinnte go bhfuil an coinghiall sin coimhlíonta. Ní bhaineann sé sin dar ndóigh le duine go bhfuil an 70 bliain d'aois sáruighthe aige.

Tá coingiall eile ann faoi'n maoin nó an teacht isteach airgid atá ag an iarrthóir agus níl aon amhras ann ná go bhfuil sé sin righin go leor ach mar dubhras i dtosach, ní féidir an liúntas do thabhairt do chách. Tá na coinghiallacha ann agus chaithfear an infhiuchaidh seo do dhéanamh sul a ndeontar an liúntas. Táim sásta gur féidir le duine ar bith atá i dteideal an liúntas d'fhághail. Is mór an truaigh go mbíonn moill ann amannta ach nil aon dul as seo agus is minic gur ar an iarrthóir féin a mbíonn an locht.

Ar caoi ar bith, sé atá ghá iarraidh ag an dTeachta agus ag an rún seo ná go n-árdóchfaí na pinsin ísle agus deirim-se go ndeineann na liúntaisí seo an rud sin ins na cásanna ina bhfuil gá leis.

With regard to the question raised by Deputy Davern of people who did not get pensions and of the rejection of other people who, from the facts, should have got them, I can only say that there has been a number of opportunities given to everybody to establish whether or not they had service qualifying them for pensions. It may be a fact that some people who had, in fact, got the service did not succeed in establishing it but they all got more than one opportunity to do so and there is no reason to believe that if they could not establish it on previous occasions, when the events were fresher in people's memory, they would be more successful now if the matter was reopened.

I am afraid that the reopening of that question would be a very big matter indeed and would be more difficult now than it was a few years ago. I cannot undertake to reopen the whole question of military service pensions again. I think that anything that could be done in that respect has already been done and if people failed to establish their service then there does not seem to me to be any way of assisting them to establish it now.

Before dealing with the case that has been made in general, I should correct one or two misapprehensions under which the mover of the motions appears to have been labouring. He mentioned in connection with the increases given in the last two Budgets that it later developed that if an unfortunate pensioner was in receipt of another pension the last one was cut and, in effect, he got nothing at all. I got the impression that he was referring to special allowances when he made that statement, and I can assure him that those Budget increases were not taken into account with regard to special allowances and, as far as I am aware, they are not taken into account with regard to social welfare benefits either.

The mover of the motion apparently did not accept my interjection that people who applied under the 1934 Act could not have applied earlier. After I had corrected him on that point he asked me if that was my interpretation and later on he said he could not follow that line of argument. This is neither my interpretation nor my line of argument. It is a fact that the 1924 Act provided only for people who had pre-Truce service and service on one side in the Civil War. Therefore, either pre-Truce service only or pre-Truce service and service on the other side, would not qualify anybody under the 1924 Act.

I agree with Deputy MacEoin that when the 1934 Act was passed it was open to the Government to make it retrospective and to pay the previous ten years' pension but financial considerations and other matters involved obviously ruled that out and they still rule it out. It is one thing to provide for a pension of an annual amount and another thing to try and collect ten times that amount and pay it out as a lump sum. The Government at the time was prepared to face up to the question of giving these pensions but obviously they did not feel that they could face up to the prospects of providing ten times the amount as a lump sum.

I hope and believe that I am as sympathetic as any Deputy in this matter. I would be the last to suggest that the amount of even the largest military service pension is adequate in relation to the service to the nation given by the people who achieved the independence of this part of the country. I do not suggest that for a moment and I should like to be able to undertake the task of making all those pensions as nearly equitable recompense as possible.

No Government has attempted to do that. They realised that the country would not be able to face up to it. What is suggested in this motion is a completely new approach in regard to the Military Service Pensions Acts. As I have said, neither in the 1924 Act nor in the 1934 Act did the Government do anything more than give a recognition of service. The pensions were never intended to be on a scale adequate to maintain the pensioner or even to have a significant effect on his standard of living. They were intended merely as a recognition of service. It is a fact that, when the pensions were originally granted, most of the recipients were in the prime of life and were in a position to work and build up the new State which they had created. For those who, because either of disease or wounds arising from their service, were unfit to do that, provision was made under the Army Pensions Acts for disability pensions.

There is no point in suggesting, as a number of Deputies did suggest, that pensioners have been given less than £1 per week to live on. I do not think anything is to be gained by making statements such as that. Deputy Giles suggested that there are such men in our workhouses today awaiting the last call.

Which is the truth.

Mr. Boland

First of all there are no workhouses.

County homes.

Mr. Boland

The special allowance provisions of the Army Pensions Acts should eliminate the necessity for that. I admit they do not do much more than that. They are intended to do that and they should ensure that what Deputy Giles suggested does not happen. I agree that the vast majority of the military service pensions are of very small amounts but I maintain that nobody is solely dependent on his military service pension to exist.

There are something in the order of 9,700 military service pensions under £1 per week and to prove the point I have made, though there are 6,000 odd special allowance holders, there are only 1,100 of those who also have military service pensions. That appears to me to be definite proof that of the 9,700 military service pensioners who have less than £1 per week pensions, there are no more than 1,100 at the very outside who have no other means outside of their military service pensions and who have to depend on the provisions of the special allowance in order to maintain themselves.

Also in the administration of Social Welfare benefits an allowance of up to £80 of military service pension is disregarded for the purpose of the Social Welfare benefits. Therefore it is clear that there is nobody in fact depending on a military service pension of less than £1 a week in order to exist. There is also preference given in State and local authority employment to old I.R.A. men.

It is very easy to suggest that the lower pensions should be raised to at least £1 per week and leave it at that. Of course, you cannot leave it at that because in all justice to those who got higher pensions they would have to be raised proportionately. It was a fundamental principle that the pension granted was in proportion to the service assessed by the referee and I do not see how you can increase the lower pensions up to £52 a year and do nothing in respect of pensions that are just above that. Obviously, if there is to be an increase it must be an increase all round and I certainly would not attempt to increase some of the pensions and ignore the others. To increase the pensions all round would be financially virtually impossible.

Running through the remarks of the Deputies who spoke was the statement that the numbers of military service pensioners are getting fewer every year. It is of course true that in the past few years that has unfortunately been the case. They have not, however, been getting fewer for as long as Deputies might think, because up to 1958 pensions were still being granted. Since the work of the referee came to an end, however, there have been no additions, only reductions, in the ranks of pensioners.

In the past few years the amount paid has been going down.

But the total payable in military service pensions and special allowances has not been going down. For instance, from the year ending March 31st, 1955, to the year ended March 31st, 1960, there was a reduction in the total amount of military service pensions of £52,294 but in that same period there was an increase in the total of military service pensions and special allowances of £44,998. So in actual fact, the total spent in that way has been increasing. Accordingly, the whole problem is not becoming easier financially on any Government that has to provide the money.

Deputy MacEoin, Deputy Davern and other Deputies stated that in so far as I or the Government are concerned they were pushing an open door in this matter and that they felt if there was anything possible we could do in this respect it would be done. I think the record of this Government shows that this is the case. The special allowance provisions of the Army Pensions Act were introduced in the first instance by a Fianna Fáil Government to cover cases of hardship and later the only increases ever given in military service pensions were also given under Fianna Fáil administration. In 1953 there were increases in pensions not exceeding £100 per annum of 50 per cent. and pensions over that figure were increased on a diminishing scale. The present Government in its last two Budgets have given increases in military service pensions of 6 per cent. in 1959 and 5 per cent. in 1960. Their combined effect was something over eleven per cent. and even though each of them, taken separately, was small, at least, the evidence is that, in so far as it is feasible in relation to the economic position of the country, this Government accept the principle of increasing military service pensions. I can assure Deputies that, as far as I am concerned, I shall always endeavour to see that, so far as possible, military service pensioners will share in whatever benefits it is possible for the Government to give at Budget time.

I can only conclude by pointing out to the House that this motion, in asking that military service pensions be adjusted so that the pensions, of themselves, would assure an adequate standard of living, is calling for a completely new approach which would involve a great amount of money. I would also point out that that approach seems to be unnecessary so far as the vast majority of military service pensioners are concerned.

What would it cost?

It depends on what the Deputy would regard as an adequate standard of living.

What would the £1 a week cost?

Does the Deputy mean increasing all pensions under £1 a week to £1?

That is in the motion.

I do not think it is. I have pointed out that that is an unrealistic approach. All pensioners would have to get a proportionate increase because the pensions are based on the service given by the pensioners as assessed by the referee, the statutory authority for assessing such pensions. If a man who according to the referee is qualified for only a small pension has that pension increased two or three times, it is obvious that those who were assessed as having better service than he would be entitled to better pensions.

I was saying that so far as the vast majority of pensioners are concerned there is really no necessity for this motion. I have shown by the figures that the majority of people receiving military service pensions have been able to provide for themselves since that time. Of course, that is what it was understood they would have to do when these pensions Acts were brought in originally. Those who are in very great need are covered by the special allowances under the Army Pensions Acts and by the different Social Welfare benefits.

I think the answer to this motion was given by Deputy MacEoin. He said:

The Minister will tell us that the Government have, in effect, put this motion into operation because of the special allowances provisions of the Act and that, in that way, they are guarding against undue hardship on the members of the old I.R.A. who are well down financially, to say the least of it.

Of course, that is the answer to it. The question of the adequacy of special allowances is being looked into at the moment.

Other Deputies referred to the severity of the means test. Since I came into the office as Minister for Defence the means test has been relaxed in a number of respects, and it may be that there is a case for relaxing it in other respects also. I believe that is the way to give effect to what Deputy Tierney has in mind. There is not a case, on economic grounds at any rate, for the increase of all military service pensions.

The case has been made for those in very bad circumstances, but that has already been covered, in so far as it is possible to cover it, by the special allowances. The adoption of the motion would not improve conditions for those who are most in need. In fact, it would mainly benefit those who are not so much in need as to qualify for special allowances. I can only ask the House not to press this motion in view of the fact that the special allowance provisions are there and in view of the fact that there is ample evidence that this Government is prepared to see as far as possible that any benefits it is possible to give will be given to military service pensioners as well as to other deserving sections of the community.

Before the Minister sits down, I should like to revert to Deputy Davern's assertion that there are people who had medals and were not entitled to them. What are the Minister's intentions regarding such people and is it intended to take any action against them? Might I ask the Minister also is it not true that his predecessor in the Fianna Fáil Benches in 1947 said that the Military Service Pensions Board had concluded their work, but in 1948 it commenced again and continued to 1958? Does the Minister not agree that in 1948 representations were made to him showing there were cases like those mentioned by Deputy Davern, cases of people who were entitled to pensions but who had not got them?

With regard to medals, we cannot undertake to investigate every medal already on issue but in the case of every new application for a special allowance the question of whether the medal was duly awarded or not is reinvestigated. If any other case comes to notice, either through a perusal of files or in any other way and if it is a doubtful case, the award of the medal is reinvestigated. If it is found not to have been duly awarded, then the special allowance is stopped in that case. In the case of any new application for a special allowance the matter is investigated as meticulously as possible.

With regard to the question of reopening the cases of people who failed to qualify for military service pensions, it is a fact that that matter was again taken up under the 1949 Act and that the investigation concluded in 1958. It is also a fact that not just at that time but continuously I get representations in respect of people who, it is stated, should be entitled to pensions but who failed to get them. As I have said, there is no reason to suppose that people who failed to establish their entitlement to military service certificates on a number of previous occasions would succeed now so many years after the events which would qualify them for a certificate.

I shall try to be brief. Like other speakers from these benches, I welcome this motion. I understand and appreciate it and I am sure that the proposer of the motion had the best intentions in introducing it. If not, I should be the first to challenge it, if I thought the old I.R.A. men in receipt of pensions were to be paraded before this House and regarded as mendicants. My own approach to this motion is somewhat different from that of the other speakers who have already spoken. I believe that the whole history of the 1924, 1934 and 1949 Acts and all the Acts to date has been the main cause of disrupting a great deal of the unity we had in the Volunteer movement and more so, in many respects, than that unfortunate period of 1922-23.

When the 1924 Act was passed, as already mentioned by the Minister, it required pre-Truce service and service with a particular side immediately after 1921. The 1934 Act came along to try to even up or give a remedy, or a "fair do" to those who took the Republican side, those who had pre-Truce service and who had service in the Republican movement during the Civil War. I remember that in 1927 it was the policy of the Party to which I am attached to parade and to use as effectively as we could the question of military service pensions granted under the 1924 Act and when the 1934 Act was introduced, the then Taoiseach, who is now President, gave as his reason for the introduction of that Bill, the requests he had received from men who qualified under the 1924 Act or served in the National Army. He said that they maintained that if they were deprived of the pension they would consider it a great hardship. Subsequently the '34 Act came in. Like the '24 Act the 1934 Act had peculiar conditions attached to it. Under the 1934 Act you had as the first referee, the late Judge O'Connor, and it was left to the referee to give a definition of what was known as "active service".

Subsequently the late Judge O'Donnell was referee. Under all referees since the coming into operation of the 1934 Act, as one of the senior officers of the West Limerick Brigade, I was one of the verifying officers and I saw immediately the great disadvantages arising from the clash over differences in their definitions of active service. It was very hard to understand who was qualified at all.

The Government of 1949 brought in an Act to amend and extend the 1934 Act and we were all hoping that many of the cases that were considered border line cases and which did not qualify under the service definition of the late Judge O'Connor or the late Judge O'Donnell and the subsequent referees might then qualify.

The Deputy will excuse the interruption but would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle tell us how much time is left?

At 10.30 p.m. there will still be 32 minutes left for the debate on this motion.

We had hoped that the 1949 Act would remedy all the border line cases.

I said that my contribution to this debate would be somewhat different from that of other speakers. The people I am interested in all the time and who apparently are not covered by this motion at all are the borderline cases taken in under the 1934 Act and the subsequent Act of 1949 which remained in operation until 1958.

Let us be very honest and sincere about this. It is agreed that it is not a question of whether you are getting £10, £12 or £15 or what you are getting per year by way of military service certificate or award; the main and fundamental thing to my mind that affected the Volunteers was the fact that they got recognition. Whether that recognition carried a monetary reward of £10 or up to £100 did not really matter so long as they got the recognition they were entitled to get. The sore point and the one that hurt a good many of the Volunteers entitled to that recognition is that they were the people who were regarded as border line cases and did not fit within the scope of the Act.

I remember that we had in Dublin a meeting of all the brigades in the country when the late Judge O'Donnell was referee. We tried by a concerted uniform action to get from the referee a clear definition of what active service would be accepted. We went back to the various brigades with a clear understanding that it was not necessary to have been in an armed engagment in all cases, that men who were key men whether in the intelligence service, outpost service or in the special services, would qualify, provided that for the three months before the Truce they were continuously engaged in that type of service. All of us who came to Dublin from the various brigades went home very satisfied that we had absorbed 95 or 98 per cent of the men we were interested in. But a change of referee came and that definition of service went by the board.

I am sure Deputy Tierney had the best intentions when he introduced this motion. When I first read it I said: "What can the present Government do to meet this particular demand? It would mean legislation." I said this because you could not at the moment give an increase to a particular number of people in receipt of pensions of a certain amount without applying it to all who are qualified under the 1924, 1934 and the 1949 Acts.

We have just heard from the Minister that at the moment we have 9,700 old I.R.A. men in receipt of pensions of less than £1 per week and that we have 6,000 in receipt of special allowances. Of the 9,700 people that Deputy Tierney had more or less covered in his motion only 1,200 would qualify for the special allowance. To do so they had to satisfy the conditions of the Act as regards their medical condition and as regards means. If they were not able to satisfy the investigation officer that their means were less than the annual amount that they were entitled to get under the Act, they would not qualify. If they were under 70, they had to produce medical evidence that they were suffering from some infirmity and unable to work or earn a livelihood.

The point I wish to make is this. I do not agree at all with Deputy Giles and I am sorry to hear that there are any of the old I.R.A. men in what are called the workhouses of county Meath.

The Deputy may call it the county home if he likes but I know three of them there.

If there are any old I.R.A. men in the county home in Meath I think it is a pity and I do not think it stands much to the credit of the old I.R.A. in county Meath to allow any of their members to be housed in the county home.

It is no credit to this House.

If there is an Old-I.R.A. man in County Meath in the position that has been referred to by Deputy Giles, if he had satisfactory service to entitle him to a service medal for three months continuous membership of the I.R.A. prior to 1921, he would be entitled to a special allowance up to £100, at the moment, as a single man and, if he had dependants, the dependants would also be provided for.

He might be chronically ill.

He might be chronically ill and might be there for hospital treatment. If this matter of the pensions of the Old I.R.A. were ever to be reviewed again, the people I would fight most for would be those whom I would describe as the key men in every active service unit in battalion and brigade areas, the key men in all the special services: signalling, engineering, outpost observation. These were the men who made it possible for the active service units to operate. If Judge O'Donnell had survived and had continued as referee of the Board he would have honoured his word and his bond and these men would qualify.

Deputy Tierney might have the best intentions in advocating that people in receipt of military service pensions of less than £52 per year should get more. I am glad to hear from the Minister that the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fianna Fáil Government were not negligent, unheeding or unmindful of their position. The three increases that have been granted by Fianna Fáil Governments from 1953 to the Budget of 1960 to members of the Old I.R.A. who were in receipt of pensions of less than £1 per week represent a total increase of 61 per cent. In addition, special allowances were introduced principally to meet the cases that Deputy Giles has mentioned.

I do not agree in toto with what Deputy Davern said, that there are people in receipt of special allowances who are not entitled to them. That may happen in South Tipperary and in other brigade areas but as one of the two senior surviving officers of the West Limerick Brigade I can say that any man in my brigade area who is in receipt of a special allowance is fully qualified and bona fide and had the requisite service to entitle him to a medal for qualification purposes for that special allowance.

That special allowance was also introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government to protect men who had continuous association with the Volunteers for the three months prior to the Truce and to ensure that in the winter of their years they would not be allowed to die in poverty or have to seek refuge in a public institution.

There is one aspect of the special allowances with which I do not agree. I refer to the severity of the means test. The means test is applied much more severely and exactingly than in the case of old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and other social benefits. We would be doing something of practical value for people who are in receipt of medals and who on reaching the age of 70 years will become eligible to special allowances, by modifying the means test. If an applicant is in receipt of and old age pension one half the amount is calculated against him. If his wife receives an old age pension that amount also is calculated as income. The result is that the amount of the special allowance is very small in that case.

We should all join in pushing the open door to which Deputy MacEoin has referred. The first step would be to ask the Minister for Defence to instruct the people who administer military service pensions to modify the severity of the means test in special allowance cases.

I can assure Deputy Tierney, who, I am sure, has put down the motion in all good faith and with the best of intentions, that the men who are in receipt of even small pensions are very pleased because they have got recognition for the service they gave during the Four Glorious Years. They are the one section that did not get fair treatment both from this Government and from the people who were in office on two occasions. The definition of service was left to referees who had the status of circuit court judges and whose definitions of active service varied. In the West Limerick Brigade area the men who are in receipt of pensions, no matter how small, are glad to have them. They are conscious of the fact that on three occasions they got from a Fianna Fáil Government increases which represented a total increase of 61 per cent. They are quite happy and satisfied with what they got but I do plead for the men who have a case in respect of the special services they rendered in the pre-Truce period and who were denied service certificates. The majority of them are approaching the time when they can apply for special allowances. As we have this opportunity of discussing Old I.R.A. pensions, I would ask the Minister to modify the means test and give these people the recognition to which they are justly entitled.

The motion that is before the House raises a matter which is of concern to many Deputies in relation to the people affected. It is true to say that in relation to persons in receipt of military service pensions efforts have been made from time to time to meet the case that can be made on their behalf. Certainly, for many years their case was entirely neglected and they were amongst the forgotten soldiers of the country until the first Inter-Party Government came into office. It was at that time that some effort was made to appreciate the difficulties that these people had to meet.

The motion deals with the persons in particular hard luck and difficulty and suggests that there should be some effort made to alleviate their difficulties. I certainly feel that this motion should commend itself to the House and should have the sympathy and understanding of the Minister.

Reference is made in the motion to "a reasonable standard of living" We all know that even with the best intentions in the world if a pension is fixed or a particular sum of money is allocated under circumstances in which rising costs begin to eat into the real value of money, difficulties are occasioned in providing what the motion asks for, a reasonable standard of living. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share