Before the Christmas recess, I tried to show that there were very grave shortcomings in the various Military Service Pensions Acts and I pointed out that early in 1919, the then Minister for Defence accepted the whole Volunteer Force of the country, together with its allied organisations such as Cumann na mBan and Fianna Éireann, as the standing army and they were all on an active service footing. I cited the relevant reference to that in the Dáil Official Report and I dealt with the question of disability pensions up to a point.
One of the points I wanted to stress was that in the case of disability, whether from wound or disease, contracted on service, no matter when the person applied, his case should be examined and it is unreasonable and unjust to say that because a man did not apply before a certain date, he cannot be considered. I submit that the greatest punishment that applicant can suffer or should suffer is that his pension should be paid only from the date of application. Dear knows, that would be serious enough. In view of our history, in view of the fact that there are several people in this country who were at one time behind us, or behind the present Government Party who were not in the House, because they did not accept the constitutional position established here and who did not apply but who are suffering disability, I think it is a very grave reflection on us that we should tell them: "Because you did not apply in time, your case cannot now be considered because the Minister has no statutory authority to make such a provision." I do not think the Dáil ever visualised that situation and I submit it should be rectified.
The second point I tried to establish —I am summarising—was that where the widow of an officer, NCO or man finds herself without any means of sustenance—or whether she has or not—once her husband dies, the disability pension dies with him unless it is established beyond yea or nay that his death was due to his disability. I am satisfied that there was never any intention on the part of the Oireachtas to create that situation; the intention was that the widow would receive the pension payable under the circumstances —the same circumstances as those under which a person died with a full certificate of death due to disability whether contracted from wounds or disease.
I assert that where the wound pension was granted, there should be no question whatever about it. The pension should carry on. I am struck by a number of cases, particularly by a case, and this hurts me very much, of an officer who had at least 14 bullet wounds in him. He became mental and was in hospital. After a long time, he was granted the disability pension and his wife's pension was also allotted. He suffered from what I am perfectly satisfied was a blood clot, became unconscious and was moved from the mental hospital to a surgical hospital where they did not know anything of his history. The death certificate says he died from diabetes. That man never regained consciousness from the time he left the mental hospital until he died in the county hospital. It is clear, in my opinion, that his death was due to his disability but the certificate says a different thing and the Minister therefore says that in these circumstances the widow is not entitled to a continuation of the pension.
That is only one of several such cases. The Minister knows of other cases in Galway and elsewhere where the same circumstances apply. I feel that in all these cases the pension should carry on to the widow. There is another case in Athlone but I do not think it is much use citing all those cases, since the Minister knows them as well as I do. The only case the Minister can make is that there is no statutory power vested in him to continue the pensions. He does, however, agree it is very hard to see a man who lived to 60 or 70 years dying from a disability so incurred, but I think he is forgetting that for a great number of years, that man was not able to make provision for his widow or anybody else because he was suffering from disability all that time.
The next portion of my motion is in regard to special allowances and the granting of medals. I submit that in every case where a person applies under the Military Service Pensions Acts, and where evidence was given of both his membership and his service, there should be no question whatever about granting a medal because the officers were available to give evidence and if such a man had not been a member of the Volunteers, the fact would have been clearly established before the Military Pensions Board. Perhaps the sources which suggested he was never a member were not really reliable. Anyhow, where they have said he was a member and did not contradict him, then automatically— and I have argued this here before— the medal should be issued.
I had a case today from the Mid-lands—not in my own area—in which an applicant for a medal says he applied for a military service pension, that he was on the Executive side, that his officers joined the Defence Forces, the National Army, and they refused to certify him because of prejudice, that they were Fine Gael, and so on, and he makes the case that political action denied him what he was entitled to. That apparently is accepted. There is another case in which a man applied for a military service certificate and was refused. He applied again under the 1949 Act and his case was heard in 1954 or 1955. He was rejected again but the medal was issued to him the following week. He was told when he applied for a special allowance that his medal had not been duly awarded. It is very difficult to know how that comes about but it has a disturbing effect on people generally. When I say "people," I mean all of my comrades of former days, whether they were for me or against me. I am forgetting all that now and I am trying to get fair play and justice for all of them.
On the question of the means test for a special allowance, I hold that at least it should be the equivalent of that for the old age pension. That is not asking too much. Let us get this fact clear. Under the Old Age Pensions Act, a pension officer reports that the applicant's means is above such a figure and notwithstanding that the pension committee grants the pension. The pension officer appeals and an appeals officer in the Department of Social Welfare examines the case anew. I would say without fear of contradiction that in 50 per cent. of the cases, if not more, the deciding officer overrides the decision of the pension officer.
For the special allowance, however, once the pension officer reports that a person's means are £X, then that becomes the same as the law of the Medes and Persians and there is no power in the Department of Defence to override it. They must take it that that is the assessment made by the pension officer and they have no power unless there is an appeal and evidence put in which is again referred to the pension officer or some other inspector for further inquiry into that person's means. Therefore, the minimum that I am asking is that where an assessment of means takes place, it should not be on a worse basis than that in respect of the applicant for an old age pension. Surely to goodness that is not going too far? I think it is reasonable and that everybody will admit it is a fair calculation.
One of the reasons I am forcing this is that I know of cases similar to the one in which a person fell out with the pension officer and ordered him about the place. In that case, the officer estimated the means as £20 from four acres of the worst land in Ireland. What I would feel like doing is to ask the pension officer to spend 12 months on that land himself and if he could get £20 out of it in any way, I would give him a medal. I admit that the applicant was wrong in the first instance in his attitude to the pension officer, and I hold no brief for him, but at the same time the calculation goes beyond all reason. In another case, a person is calculated as having a room set in Athlone and, therefore, he has £1 per week out of that, as if there were no other costs in the house to be taken into account, rent, rates and so on. These tests would not apply for the old age pension.
I am arguing that the whole matter should be re-examined and that the Minister should have statutory power to delegate authority to an official to operate the special allowances on the same basis as the non-contributory old age pensions code, or otherwise that for the purpose of the special allowance, the adjudicating officer for old age pensions be the adjudicator on the main question of means for the special allowance. Perhaps that would be only an administrative matter but I feel it would be taking it away to another Department.
I feel that even in the short time at my disposal, I should go back again to the Military Service Pensions Act. Under the Military Service Pensions Act from 1922 to 1949, there was no definition whatever of active service. The definition of active service was left to the arbitrary decision of the board for the time being. Under the 1924 Pensions Act, there were grave complaints about the definition of active service but there was the additional condition that you had to have service in the Defence Forces. Under the 1934 Act, there was no definition of active service and the Oireachtas was right not to define it because they were accepting the point of view that the Volunteers and associated forces were the standing army of the country in its difficult times and all that had to be established was that they had full-time membership and gave considerable time to the work they had done.
Active service was laid down then by the boards and one chairman and one board would do one thing and another chairman and another board would do something else. The net result was that people got certificates under one board which they would not have got under another board. I feel, and I am not advocating that active service should be a condition, that if we must have it a condition, if the Government assert that view and reject mine, that there should be active service, it should be operated on the definition that everybody would know what he has to establish. For that purpose, I include not only the Volunteers who were actually on the ground, but railway workers, drivers, guards, porters and so on, who carried despatches and did all types of work for the Army at the time.
I suggest that the definition of active service should be something like this first, engaging in any armed attacks; secondly, cutting, mining, or obstructing roads or railways; thirdly, cutting telegraph lines, or other means of communication; seizure of mails; carrying of despatches; guarding parties of the forces; carrying out armed patrols; having care or custody of the transport of arms and ammunition. Without fear of contradiction, I assert that the man who stored the material that I captured at Ballymahon, or anywhere else in attacks on barracks, and who kept it safely in his own home, under his own control, went through as tough a time, if not a tougher time, than the fellows out in the field; he knew what the consequences would be if a raid took place on his house. But he is just brushed aside. What did he do? And what he did is considered of no merit.
The same applies to the conveyance of the material from Ballinalee to Ballymahon, dumping it outside Ballymahon, handing it over to a farmer there the day before. Surely that was as much active service as was the service of those who took part in the attack on the barracks. There is no question of doubt about it. But, again, it is "What did he do? He only carried the stuff."
Forcibly seizing arms, munitions, materials, and so forth covers raiding for the raw material—the gunpowder, explosives, caps, and whatnot; to my own knowledge, men engaged in these activities travelled long distances.
Transporting armed parties of the forces; having the custody of prisoners, or suspected persons; attending in their training camps; attending council meetings, and battalion, or higher, formations; catering; providing accommodation and laundry and other essential services for members of the forces. That latter relates more, of course, to Cumann na mBan in a certain sense. The truth is that there are men who did all these things. A good cook was a very useful adjunct indeed. Rendering first aid to members of the forces during operations and nursing sick or wounded members; if all these things were laid down applicants would know what they had to establish. At the moment they did not know. There is only one thing a former applicant did know, and he hoped to God that he knew someone who would help.
It is that that has begotten all the controversy. Indeed it looks now as if it would have been better never to have passed the Pensions Acts at all. There would not be so much jealousy and hard feeling amongst former comrades. It was the granting of pensions to certain people and the refusal of pensions to certain others that generated much of the later hostility between former members of that gallant body that served the country so well. These men handed over government in 1918 to the Government then established, before freedom was fully secured and, except for a few small instances they have obeyed from that day to this the elected Government of the country. We can be proud of that record when we see what is happening in other countries where revolutionary effort is taking place. We are aware of all the turmoil and upset. Were it not for the grace of God, perhaps that would have been our position too.
I wish I were able to make a much better case because a much better case can be made. Unfortunately, my physical condition at the moment does not allow me to make the case I should like to make. The facts are as I have stated and I appeal to all members of this House to accept this motion and to establish, even at this late hour, one or more boards to examine into and determine all the applicants over again. There are not many left. In particular, I ask this House to ensure that where disability has been established the pension carries on to the widow. I think that is a very small plea. With regard to the assessment of means, the adjudicating officer should have the same power as the appeals officer has in the case of the old age pension. I know there are many here who believe the Act should be amended. I appeal to both sides of the House to support this motion.
