As he explained, Deputy Tierney is young in the House. I submit that legislation is not necessary to implement his request, that it could be met by administrative action. However, I shall not argue that because you have given your ruling, Sir. Deputy Tierney's motion will come up at a later date.
The first question I wish to ask the Minister is whether in regard to our casualties in the Congo the United Nations has made any contribution by way of refund to our Vote, or is that still sub judice and is a claim outstanding ? The Minister should tell us what is the total amount paid to date in respect of Congo casualties and what refund, if any, has been received from the United Nations. In that way, we would be better able to approach this Vote. Of course, I trust, with the Minister, that there will not be any more casualties. The casualties we have had are costing the taxpayers a considerable amount and in my humble submission, we are entitled to a refund. I should like to know what it will be and, while there is a charge here, will there be an appropriation-in-aid at a later stage? I think the Minister should have told us that in his speech.
The Minister told us that there is before the House an amending Defence Forces Pensions Scheme which will, in respect of the members of the Defence Forces who have retired or who have been discharged since 1st February, 1961, adjust their retired pay and pensions in the light of the pay increases which come into effect on that date. Again, I submit the Minister should have given us some indication as to what the amount was likely to be so that we could decide whether justice is being done and whether the proposals will be adequate, because when we pass this Vote we shall get no opportunity except by way of Parliamentary Question to inquire what the position is. When the scheme is produced, it will be a fait accompli. The motion will be passed by the House, I presume, with the usual majority of two or three who would then be supporting the Government.
The Minister has told us there are substantial increases in certain subheads, but in military service pensions, there is a reduction of £18,000 since last year. That means that a very large number of people have gone to their eternal reward and there is no consideration given to those who are left, many of whom, I regret to say, are in rather straitened circumstances.
On the question of special allowances and the issue of medals, there is much to be desired. While I am aware there were abuses in the issue of medals, I am perfectly satisfied that a system is being operated in which verifying officers are nominated who have no opportunity of knowing whether A, B, C, or D were or were not members of the Defence Forces from 1st April, 1921, to 11th July, 1921. To give an example of what I mean, I was arrested in March, 1921, that is, prior to the qualifying date, and I was not released until August, 1921, after the qualifying date. I know that a volunteers, A, was a member of the volunteers in, say, "A" Company when I was arrested and I found him there when I came back. Surely it is not unreasonable to assume that he remained from 1st April to 11th July and yet my testimony under existing regulations cannot and will not be taken. I agree that it is right but I must look to the question of the knowledge of those within whose competence it would be to contradict me.
Let me take a concrete example. I shall not cite the names but I shall give them to the Minister if he wants them. A has a dispute with his company captain. He has a dispute with his first lieutenant. The company captain joins the Defence Forces, the National Army; the first lieutenant joins the other side, the Executive Forces. This man falls out with the two of them. They both say he was not in their company but the company captain who came on the Executive side subsequent to the outbreak of the Civil War testifies that he was a member of the company and so do three other officers, and the Department says that A, B, C and D were not, in fact, officers of the company or the battalion of which the person claims membership. That is sheer nonsense. If he was not a member of that company, there was no company or no battation.
It is true that subsequent to 11th July, part of that company became the Fifth Battalion and part of it remained in the First Battalion, but at the relevant time, from 1st April to 11th July, 1921, it was the First Battalion. However, I am told that the decision of the Department is: "The Minister desires me to say that A, B, C and D were not, in fact, officers of the company or battalion of which he claimed membership." That is amazing and that is signed by the Assistant Secretary to the Department.
Again it is difficult at this late stage to get all the information required, but where you have persons, who are themselves in receipt of military service certificates, and who are prepared to swear an affidavit that A was a member of the company at the qualifying period, from 1st April, 1921, to 11th July, 1921, surely that is substantial evidence which should be accepted; and there should be an inquiry as to why the other people say that he was not a member, because an injustice is being done.
The next point I want to stress is the fact that I am aware that an officer living seven miles away—we had not so many motor cars then as we have now—has been asked to say whether, in his opinion, a certain applicant was or was not a member. If he says: "Yes, he was," he is then asked (a) is that from his own knowledge or (b) is it from records? Now, if the person says it is from his own knowledge, that should be accepted. If it is not accepted, I submit a false statement has been made, the papers should be sent to the Attorney General, and a prosecution should follow. If the Department set themselves up as the official arbiters of truth as between the applicant and themselves, then it is a shame and an outrage for them to accept doubtful evidence for political or other reasons. In passing, may I say my motion was intended to solve that particular kind of difficulty. The longer we delay in this matter, the greater the hardship caused and the greater will be the difficulties from the point of view of getting information.
My next point is with regard to disability. An amazing situation has developed—one which, I am sure, the House, the Minister, or the framers of the code never visualised. It is clearly established that an officer is suffering from disability because of gunshot wounds received in action. That disability is due to service. In one case, there are no fewer than 14 wounds. He is a married man with a wife and family. He is receiving continuous treatment in a mental hospital. One night, he is transferred from the mental hospital to a local medical and surgical hospital. He dies there. The widow is then informed he did not die from the disability in respect of which he received a pension. He died from diabetes. The doctor who was present at death issued the certificate; that is the practice. I questioned the other doctor and he declared it was a blood clot. But it was held that the man did not die as a result of disability.
The second case is that of an Old IRA officer who had both pre-Truce and post-Truce service. He got six bullet wounds while serving in the Volunteers and he was wounded five or six times in the Civil War. He came from the Minister's county and I am sure the Minister knows him better than I do, for he fought on the Minister's side and against me in the Civil War. I cannot, therefore, be charged with holding any brief for him, but I do hold a brief for him in the sense that he is an Old IRA man whom I met in King George V Hospital, now St. Bricin's, in 1921. He got a disability pension. He died. It was said again that he had not died from the disability for which he had a pension.
Now, in both these cases there was an allowance for the wife and the children. Not only did the pensions die with them, but the allowances to the wives and children died as well. The wives and children were left to Social Welfare. Social Welfare may be a nicer name, but it is the work-house all over again. The results are identical. No Old IRA man or his dependants should be left in the position of mendicants at someone else's table. These people are either disabled and entitled to these pensions, or they are not; and there should be no victimisation of their dependants. These are but two instances out of many. These are purely administrative matters. No legislation is necessary, or called for, to remedy the situation. It merely involves an administrative act.
In the third case, the disabled person was not too badly injured and he continued in the Army for six, seven, or eight years. He then retired and went into business. Business did not treat him too well and he began also to suffer serious disability from the injury he received while in the Army. There is no question about the facts. In that case, the reply from the Minister is that the time for application has expired. What has an injury, sustained in the service and established, to do with the moral right of the man to the pension and when he applied for it? It will be bad enough if he is paid only from the date of application. I could understand the Minister saying: "Very well. You suffered this disability on such a date. It is established that you are entitled to it but you will be paid the pension only as from today, not from the date you retired from the Army." That would be hard treatment. It would be tough. I submit, however, that it would be an administrative act for which the Minister can, perhaps, make a case. Something similar happened to me today. Because of dereliction on my part to notify in time An Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of my intention to raise a particular matter, I was not permitted to raise it. I can quite understand that. Furthermore, I can quite understand that, because of not taking care to apply in time, a person should be paid only from the date of his application.
I have purposely avoided giving the names of these officers. However, I should like the following particulars entered on the record. For the medal, the reference number is MD-32545. The late application case is dated 11th May, 1962, No. DP-35987. I shall send the other reference number to the Minister.
I know that this system has grown up over the years. I know also that a large number of people honestly believe that unless they belong to a political Party or favour a certain side, they cannot get what they are entitled to. I can say that that charge cannot truly be laid at my door, although it was. Unfortunately, I feel that members of the Minister's Party gave the impression that that was so. I fear it is one of the causes, if not the chief cause, of the dissatisfaction which has arisen in regard to this whole matter.
I am very perturbed about the special allowances. Consider the Shannon valley—the callow land, the bad yellow clay at the bottom, the small farms. I am speaking of an Old IRA man who gave his place over to his son who got married. The old man is receiving an old age pension of 30/- a week. He has a special allowance. The yearly sum to which he was entitled by way of special allowance was £91. It has been reduced in this way: Grazing rights—of what, I do not know—£31; value of capital—the few pounds he kept to bury him— £11 4s.; the old age pension of 30/-a week is assessed with £2 12s. 2d.— because he has that: free lodging and maintenance £39. The special allowance is now down to £3 per annum.
