When I reported progress last night, I had mentioned the fact that the Minister's predecessor withdrew the privilege to Old IRA officers serving in the Army of extending their service by two years. I was pointing out that the withdrawal of that right had a serious financial consequence for these officers and that they suffered a substantial loss. I have been reliably informed that the Minister's predecessor and the present Minister received a deputation from the officers who were thus compulsorily retired. They made the case that not only did they lose the social end of the two years' service and all that goes with it—there are certain amenities; there is no doubt about that—but they suffered a very substantial financial loss.
I am informed that the Minister received them favourably and sympathetically enough but that is as far as it has got. I do not intend to labour the point if the Minister, under the new schemes he proposes to bring in, intends to make good the loss suffered by these officers by way of increased pay, increased gratuity and the benefits they would have secured in the light of the increased cost of living had they served the two years in the Army. They suffered these losses in consequence of being pushed out, as it were.
It was, I admit, an extension, but it was given in recognition of their services and the services of people like them who helped to establish the State. I feel that the Minister in his introductory speech should have told us something about it. There are a great many omissions from that speech. It is imperative that in his reply he should try to cover all these matters which have arisen and say what the plans are for amending or altering the administration as it is at present carried out.
With regard to serving personnel, some extraordinary situations have arisen. The most difficult case I have encountered is where an officer, an N.C.O. or man who died within the past four or five years, but not in the Congo, and where it is fairly well established that the disability from which he died was contracted during the Emergency, there is no recognition because he died at a later date. In other words, the soldier or officer happened to live too long. If he had died a few years earlier, then his widow and children would qualify, but because he lived on a few years, it has been taken that the disability from which he died was not attributable to the Emergency, although, as I said, it was fairly well established that the disability was contracted during the Emergency and the fact that he was able to continue to serve is now taken as a bar to recognition of the widow and dependants.
I could cite many cases. I have in mind one case of an officer who left a widow and large family. Had he died during the Emergency from the disability he contracted, then the widow would have got a pension of a substantial nature, but today she gets the princely figure of £100 per annum and £27 roughly for each child. There are six or seven children. She is left in the position that she cannot work to get any additional emolument because the children are young and small. Consequently, she has to spend all her time with them and try as best she can to sustain them and herself on that miserable allowance. The case is made that this man did not die during the Emergency. The decision was based on the fact that it was not established the officer had died from disease attributable to service in the Defence Forces during the Emergency period. I think that is the toughest type of administrative action possible and I should be glad to know what the Minister intends doing concerning it.
There are so many difficulties arising under the Military Service Pensions code that I could talk here on it for hours. I am aware of the fact, which I assert without hesitation, that there is not a Deputy who could not contribute to the debate and show that these difficulties arise and that these hardships are being suffered by a very considerable number of people. We have the amazing situation that every officer, N.C.O. and man appears to become a great fellow when he dies and we seem to have the greatest pleasure in putting up memorials and gardens of remembrance, all for dead fellows.
I submit the best memorials a Minister or Government could raise in honour of any of these people would be a well provided for widow and dependan's. That would be a much more fitting memorial than anything in stone. The position is, as I pointed out yesterday, that the financial provision for the administration of the Military Service Pensions Act has been reduced by the very substantial sum of about £80,000 due to the fact that the Grim Reaper has been at work.
I take it the widows of military service pensioners would not have been provided for were there not disability in existence but where, as in some of the cases I have cited, doubt arises about these matters, if an error is to be committed I submit it should always be in favour of the applicant and not of the State because I am sure the State never had any intention of treating widows and dependants harshly. Accordingly, I feel the time has now been reached when the question of these pensions has become a matter of very serious import. It is true to say that 20, 25, or 30 years ago, the military service pensions were sneered at on the grounds that pensions were being provided for able-bodied persons. Perhaps there were grounds for that but today these people are reaching the stage when they are no longer able to work and in five or ten years' time the number of people who will be able to parade with the 1916 and 1921 medals will be very few.
I submit, therefore, that the time has come when, no matter what controversy there has been in the past, there is an obligation on the Government of the day, when the matter is brought to their notice, to rectify whatever wrongs may have been committed.
There are two other points I want to make. The first one is again an administrative problem. An IRA officer was granted a military service pension, granted his rank, and there was a report made to the Board and Referee at a later stage which led to a re-investigation of the claim. The Referee and Board withdrew that man's rank. It was asserted he had got his rank though he was not entitled to it but there was no question at any time that he was not entitled to the service he was awarded. However, the State took the unusual step of prosecuting this officer on the ground that he had got a rank to which he was not entitled.
That officer was tried here in the city of Dublin, the trial having been transferred from his local area in case the local jury might be swayed in his favour. It was brought to Dublin and on the evidence submitted for the prosecution, and partially on that submitted for the defence, the learned trial judge, who later became the Chief Justice, directed the jury to acquit him on all counts. Yet, arbitrarily, that officer, from that day to this, has been deprived of a pension in respect of his rank as well as a pension for his service, although he is entitled to his rank.
I submit that the Minister should take such steps as may be necessary to rectify a case such as that. Prejudice and ignorance were the cause of the statements that were made. There was prejudice from other quarters against this officer as well. I always felt he had a good case against the State in law, but since he had not a lot of the world's goods, he did not take his courage in his hands and prosecute his claim in the courts. I advised him as far as I could. He is not a political supporter of mine or of the Party to which I belong. For a while, he was a member of the Government Party. I am speaking on his behalf therefore simply because of the justice of his claim.
Finally, there is an old chestnut of mine which concerns the Disability Pensions Board. For a long number of years, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance have not paid an adequate salary or emoluments to the civilian medical member of the Pensions Board. At one time, the Minister for Finance promised to deal with the matter. It was argued by Defence that this person was a nominee of the Minister for Finance. I find that that is not correct and that he is a nominee of the Minister for Defence. He receives a very meagre amount. He is a very able doctor. When the military member of the Board gets promotion in the ordinary way, his salary goes up, but the civilian member remains put. Any increase he has got has been of a very minor nature. I suggest to the Minister that that should now be rectified.
The argument is made that he is not a permanent official. Without doubt, there is no obligation on the State to pay him a pension on retirement, but he has been working in this office for a great number of years—for the best part of 27 or 28 years. He is no longer young and I am sure he has responsibilities. Both the present Government and the inter-Party Government, and I as Minister, did not do justice in the case. If the Minister takes steps to rectify the matter, he will get all the support necessary from this side of the House.
Perhaps I have spoken longer than I intended. I was disappointed last night. It was a bit of a surprise to me to find that my motion could not be taken with the Estimate. I thought the fact that the Minister said he had no objection would enable us to take them together. However, the Chair ruled it would create precedents and so on and that other Departments were involved. I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps he and the Government should consider giving special time for a debate on the motion on the Order Paper.