I move:
That in the opinion of Dáil Éireann the Government should introduce legislation (1) to amend the Army Pensions Acts of 1924 and 1934 to 1949, and see that justice is done to legitimate claimants for Military Service Certificates, and (2) to amend the Army Pensions Acts of 1923 to date so as to (a) extend the Disability Pensions Acts to those who suffered from disease attributable to service, (b) include the widows and Dependent children of persons in receipt of disability pensions due to gunshot wounds or disease contracted on service, or attributable to service, and (c) amend the regulation governing the means test for special allowance.
This motion has been a very long time on the Order Paper but I am very glad that even at this late hour we have got the opportunity of moving it. I know it is a motion that has support on all sides of the House. Therefore, I move it with confidence and in the belief and hope that the Minister for Defence and the Government will accept it. It is not as complete, perhaps, as I myself would like to have it. It is divided into three parts and each part deals with a very specific set of facts and cases.
I am glad to say that this motion has the full support of my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party. It does represent the policy of the Fine Gael Party relating to this whole question. It is true that this part of the policy was put before the electorate at the last election. It is also true to say that a very large number of people who did demand and are demanding amendment voted against it. I think that was due more to loyalties to Parties than to the body of their colleagues who needed and who should get this help.
I find it extremely difficult to use words which will be reasonable and which will convince my colleagues in the House on both sides that they should approve of the motion and urge the Minister and the Government to accept it. I feel that there are two obligations on me. In the first place, I will have to show the justice of the claim for the amendment of the Acts and, secondly, perhaps, to defend myself as to why I did not amend the Act when I was Minister for Defence. Perhaps the best thing I could do would be to get the latter point out of the way first.
When I became Minister for Defence in the last Government, I found that a board was operating. As an old member of the IRA, I was not satisfied with the decisions it was giving. I was not satisfied with the decisions given in cases where a certificate was issued on the grounds that they were inadequate, insufficient and did not give full credit to the applicant for the service rendered. In the cases where they were rejected, rejections were taking place which, in my opinion, should not take place.
On examination, I found that was due to two causes. In the first place, there was no definition of "active service". It was incumbent on the applicant to satisfy the board that he had what was known as active service, although there was no definition of the phrase. Under the 1924 Act one had to be a member of the Defence Forces in order to qualify. I should like to point out, in passing, that at a later date Fianna Fáil charged that as unfair and unjust and proceeded to rectify it. But again they did not rectify the flaw in the Act in that there was no definition of "active service". The result was that you had what were known as easily decided cases, where it was clear that an applicant was a member of a column and was on wholetime service from point A to B, or that he was out in 1916 and so on. If he was out for any day in the week of 1916, he could get a day's service. In some cases that represented a year's or two years' service. If he was out the whole weeks, it ordinarily qualified him for the pension.
In cases I cited here previously the applicants did not know what they had to establish. In 90 per cent. of the cases, they went before the board believing that their service was well known to the members of the board and that it would be recognised immediately. Unfortunately, that was not so.
The other definition was "service of an essential and dangerous nature." It was impossible for an applicant to know what constituted that. Therefore, you had applicants calling witnesses to prove something, although they did not know what the requirement was. You had the board deciding in a most haphazard way what was essential and dangerous service. The net result was that people with much less service than others succeeded in getting certificates. That begot this hostility between comrades. The charge was made that so-and-so got a pension because he had so-and-so as a pal. Unfortunately, the idea became widespread, and still obtains, that there is influence in all these matters. Be that as it may, it has bedevilled the whole question with the result that nobody has been satisfied under any of the Acts because there is no definition of service.
I feel the justice of the claim is such that it should be hardly necessary to make it. I should like to remind a great number of people who think differently that the Volunteers with the Citizen Army and other units became the standing Army of this country with the administration of the Oath in the Dáil in August, 1919. The then Minister for Defence declared on the 20th of August, 1919, that the Volunteers were the standing Army of this country and, as such, must be subject to the Government. When the Minister for Defence confirmed those officers in their ranks, with such additions as were necessary subsequently, they became part of the standing Army of the nation. I assert that once they became part of the standing Army, just the same as the standing Army of to-day, they should not have to say what they were doing, whether they were doing guard duty at Portobello or McKee barracks or whether they were in the cook house. Whatever their duty was, they were part of the Army and had all the rights and privileges attached thereto. When the Oath was administered, I know from personal knowledge that some Volunteers who were on parade on that Sunday refused to take the Oath and went home.
On page 206 of the Official Report for 6th August, 1920, the then Minister for Defence, the late Cathal Brugha, God rest him, reported that the reorganisation of the Army on the basis of the vote of the previous session was now complete. From that on, not all of them, but a great number of them were in the field. At various stages, from then until the Truce and subsequent to it, at every meeting of the Dáil the Minister for Defence made a report on defence. There is no question that the Volunteers and the members of Cumann na mBan and Fianna Éireann were subject to the Minister for Defence. In so far as they were, I claim they are entitled to recognition as such.
When I was leaving the Department of Defence, I had all the provisions made for the establishment of the new boards. That was in pursuance of an undertaking I gave to Deputy Gilbride to amend the Military Service Pensions Act and to define service. The Government of the day—let this be clear— decided it would be unreal and unreasonable to set up two groups of deciding officers, because the then referee and the board had reported that they would conclude the investigation by a certain date. The Government decided therefore that no amendment of the Act would take place before the final report of that referee and board was made. I felt that time was passing and I got authority from the Government to proceed with the drafting of the Bill that I would introduce when the reference had concluded his investigations and made his report on the working of the Act. I am sure the Minister has these documents because I set up within the Department a committee to carry out this plan.
It may be no harm to cite the size of the difficulty that had to be contended with. The number who applied under the 1924 to 1934 Acts was 82,000. Of these, 1,500 were successful and 63,300 were rejected. As I say, rejections in most cases were due to the fact that the applicants did not know what they were to establish. As time passed on, the 1949 Act enabled rejected applicants to appeal and also gave an opportunity for new applications. The latest date for appeals was 18th September, 1953, and the latest date for fresh applications was extended to 18th March, 1955. Adjudication by the board of assessors under the 1924 Act and by the referee under the 1934 Act on petitions and applications were then proceeding. The total number of persons concerned in these, under all the Acts, was 16,150 appeals and 4,630 new applications.
The new applications were due to many causes. There were applications by people who were associated with the Executive Forces in the Four Courts and who were associated with members of the present Government. When the present Government came into the House, these people did not follow suit and a number of them, associated with the Executive Forces, did not appeal. There was no doubt that a certain number of these people had active service, both pre-Truce and post-Truce.
It is interesting to look at these figures. The previous Fianna Fáil Government, in 1949, had decided that all these cases were over and done with and that everybody who was entitled to get a certificate of service had got it. However, under the 1949 Act, there were 16,150 petitions, without counting the new applications. Some time in 1956, 1,610 of these petitions had been successful. Of the 4,630 new applications, 290 succeeded. The number of petitions undecided was 1,530 and 470 of the new applications were undecided.
That was roughly the position when I was leaving Office as Minister for Defence. The new Government came in. They knew that their predecessor had promised to amend the Act. There is what is known as continuity. Even though there is a change of Government, it does not necessarily follow that the new Minister should repudiate the undertakings given by his predecessor but that, unfortunately, is what happened. The board was reconstructed on the death of the judge and was eventually wound up. There the matter remains ever since. Because there was no definition of active service, there was no possible method by which applicants could establish their claim. I set out my intentions regarding that matter to the Government and action was postponed until the referee and the board had considered it.
Time is running short and the number of these people is getting smaller every day. Even at this late stage, recognition should be given to them. I feel it is essential that "service" be defined and defined in the manner I have set out. It would take too long for me to go into it in detail now but there is a fair indication in the form of a directive to the adjudicating officers. For the purpose of getting speedy decisions, I proposed that a certain number of boards be set up in each area. But there would be this directive as to how to ascertain service, if service had to be to a qualification, and the type of service, whether it was cooking for the column or whatever else it might be, that that in itself, because of the decision of the Minister for Defence, of August, 1920 that they were then on active service and were a whole-time Army, as it were, in the field. It is true that on every occasion when these Bills were introduced and Acts passed there was one overriding factor, that is, that the Minister for Finance had not sufficient money. Nobody has denied that claim but the argument was that we had done as much as could be done within our financial resources.
I think a great many people would be satisfied if they had the certificate of service without the money but the greatest insult or injury is for a person, who has had service, to bring up his witnesses to establish it and then to be told he had none. To the man or woman of independent mind—we had many of them at that time—who rendered service and helped to establish this State, that is the greatest insult. I do not say that we did all the establishing but we were a substantial part of the forces that helped to build it up. I do not say that the Army did everything; various Departments played an important part, sometimes a more important part than, the Army, but on the whole, the Army did the lion's share of the work. To be told after that, in a very skimpy note, that they did not qualify caused resentment and now that many of those concerned have gone to their reward, it will not be easy to make good the damage done.
Even at this late date, the records are there; the sworn testimony is on the file of practically every applicant and there is no reason why these could not be resurveyed and the certificates issued. On the question of the military service pensions only, I commend my plan to the Minister. I do not care what the expenditure is. In equity and justice, I think he should see to it that these cases are re-examined and certificates issued. Where he finds, under the definition I left behind me, that the fact of service is established, the certificate should be given to the person concerned, whether he fought with the Executive Forces or in the forces of the State, once he had pre-Truce service. That was the all-important matter. Where an applicant remained neutral in the Civil War period, he would get his qualification for pre-Truce service in keeping with that awarded to his comrades who had service on both sides.
I do not know that I have made a good case on the question of the service certificate but I feel so strongly about it that I have only one more comment to make, that is, that I regret my inability to make the case as well as I should like to make it.
The second leg of the motion deals with the extension of the Disability Pensions Acts to those who suffer from disease attributable to service. I know this is one of the most difficult problems any Minister has to contend with, but, again, there is a record in nearly every applicant's case, where he had a disability pension based on a decision as to the cause of his disability, whether exposure, hardship or hunger strike. I am dealing with disability due to disease and a good number of possible causes are set out. I have no doubt that the records clearly show that and there is no use in anybody saying to me—and nobody should be allowed to say to the Minister or the Government—that the people who had disability pensions for disability of this type were capable of earning their livelihood between leaving the Defence Forces or the Volunteers and the date of their death.
In a great number of cases, because of the hardship they went through and because, possibly, of the disappointment of not attaining their ideals, or perhaps because they thought they were not getting the recognition they deserved from the Government or their comrades whom they had helped to achieve their present position, the applicants mental condition became unsettled. In many cases, these men— and in a few cases, women—did not make any provision for themselves. They were unable to do it because they were unsettled. Never in the history of any other country was there a revolution carried out, as it happened here, after which when stable Governments were established in a short space of years, the revolutionary bodies handed over completely to the elected Government of the country and accepted their dictates on every matter. Even where the few exceptions occurred, the people who were breaking away thought they were still carrying out the wishes of the elected Government. They suffered mental and other hardships through not being able to make provision for themselves or their families.
I appeal to every Minister in the Government and to every Deputy, where widows and dependents of these people now exist—the Department has detailed records of every one of them— even at this late stage, to give them recognition and compensation for their hardship.