Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1963

Vol. 201 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Bartley):

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £1,458,210 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an muhirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhártha, 1964, le haghaidh Pá Scortha, Pinsin, Cúiteamh, Liúntais agus Aiscí is iníoctha faoi Reachtanna Éagsúla le Comhaltaí d'óglaidh na hÉireann agus d'Eagraíochtaí áirithe Míleata eile. etc., nó ina leith sin, agus le haghaidh Ranníocaí agus Costais Éagsúla i ndáil leo sin, etc.

The Estimate is for a net sum of £2,187,310, which is an increase of £321,850 on the original Vote for 1962-63. As a result of last year's Budgetary increases, however, a sum of £171,150 was provided in the Vote for Increases in Pensions in respect of the pensions and allowances for which my Department is responsible. The net increase, therefore, is £150,700, but the difference of nearly £322,000 between the present Estimate and the original Vote for 1962-63 shows that the cost, for a full year, of the last Budgetary increases is very substantial indeed.

The Estimate itself follows the usual pattern. It is clear and calls for little explanation. Special allowances and pensions and allowances under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes continue to increase in number, while the number of military service pensions and wound and disability pensions shows a decrease—a development which, regrettably, has to be expected due to the effluxion of time.

The provision for special allowances has now become very substantial at £587,000. At present there are about 7,100 allowances on pay and with the increase of the appropriate annual sums and the relaxations in the means test the average amount of a special allowance is now somewhat above £80. The combined provision for military service pensions and special allowances is £1,253,000 or considerably more than one half of the total Estimate and members of the Old IRA and kindred organisations, as well as their dependants, also benefit substantially from the other major subheads.

We had a long debate on pensions generally only a few months ago on the occasion of Deputy MacEoin's motion. I think, therefore, that there is no need for me to say any more in introducing the Estimate but I shall be glad to deal with any questions which may be raised in the course of the debate.

General MacEoin:

It would be no harm to start where the Minister left off. He has come to the conclusion it is not necessary for him to say much because he said it all a couple of months ago on a motion before the House in my name. I would like to repeat what I said then, that the appeal I made on that occasion was the last appeal I was going to make to this Fianna Fáil Government for justice for my former comrades, whether they were with me or against me at a certain period in this country's history. I now repeat that it is not my intention to ask the Government to do anything further. They mobilised all their battalions to vote against that motion. Indeed, they embarrassed some of my former comrades who had to vote against it.

It is true the Minister said in reply he was examining some of the points raised in relation to the widows of persons in receipt of 100 per cent disability pensions due to wounds. I thought that after two months, the Minister might have mentioned the matter now. I am glad to note that the widow of a former soldier has been granted a pension, notwithstanding the fact that the cause of death on the death certificate was different from the disability in respect of which the pension was granted. Would the Minister say in reply what decision he has been able to come to in these matters?

I am also disappointed in relation to serving personnel and former members of the Defence Forces. A strong case has been made here in relation to the withdrawal of the two years' extension of service for those in good health and physically and mentally fit or those who had a military service medal. Their service could be extended for two years over and above retirement. The Minister and the Government withdrew that privilege, as it might be called, or the right, and gave them two years' pay in lieu of the service. If they had been allowed to serve on for two years, they would have had increased pay and increased allowances and their pension and gratuity would have been considerably higher. The Government, in my opinion, imposed on this relatively small number of officers a very great hardship and a grave injustice. In view of the fact that there is a small number and a small amount involved the Minister should have been able to tell us that it was his intention to pay these officers that gratuity and increased pension to which I submit they were entitled under the regulations which then obtained.

It is not good enough for the Army or anybody else that when a change of Government occurs, a grave alteration should be made in the decisions of the previous Administration. That should be avoided. The Government and the Minister were ill-advised to take that step. These were all officers who were physically and mentally fit to serve for the further two years but the Minister's predecessor arbitrarily withdrew the right to serve for the additional two years and simply told them they had to go. They suffered under a grievance and those who served the country so well should not be left to suffer under any such grievance.

As I said, the number is getting smaller every year as far as the pensions are concerned. No doubt the special allowance is increasing as the age of 70 is arrived at but when they come to 75, the roll call will be low. The Lord will have called upon a great number of them. By watching the daily papers, we can see that the numbers who are dying are increasing daily, I regret to say. There is no day on which you do not see the flag going up for some of the old members. However, as I say, I am not going to appeal any more, but as the Minister did say that he was examining this matter, I should like to know what headway he has made with his examination and what is the position now.

Mr. Crinion:

In regard to the special allowances, I should like to compliment the Minister on the increased rates he has given during my short time here. They have exceeded the special allowances given at any other time. On behalf of the people who are getting the special allowances, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister in that respect.

There are a few matters to which I should like to draw attention and which the Minister may possibly be able to remedy in some way or other. One of these is the delay in giving the special allowance. I know of cases where the investigation has been going on for years. They have been dealing with one particular case since I came into this House. A decision has not yet been given. It has not been turned down but it has not been given. Something should be done to obviate these long delays. One way would be to do as the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, does, that is, to back pay the pension to the date of the application. If something like that were done, it would be a help, or at least it would spur on the Department to carry out the investigations more quickly because they would know they were losing money. It is not fair to hold up people for such a long time.

It is very difficult because these people will come to me and ask: "Have you heard anything since about the special allowance?" It is rather embarrassing when one has to say no, that it is still being investigated. People's patience wears out and I feel they have a genuine grievance about the delay. Once their former commanding officers receive the query from the Department, they sign it, give their report and send it away, so that there is no delay on the part of their colleagues. From my own experience, limited as it is, I find they go to a lot of trouble trying to find out whether a person was a member in the vital three months period.

Mr. P. O'Donnell:

They are hoping he will die in between.

Mr. Crinion:

I am not going to take the Deputy up on that. This delay is annoying to those people who have given valuable service to the cause. I know it is difficult to investigate something that happened 40 years ago. Memories are inclined to become dim and not to be quite as clear as they would be about something that happened yesterday. I feel that the examinations go too deeply, that you more or less want to have a cast-iron case and even then the Department might not be satisfied. I would be grateful if something were done to speed up the examinations and pay the amounts retrospectively to the date of application.

A number of applications have been turned down because the medical report sent in with the application was not right. I know of two cases where they were written off because the medical report was not right. In one of those cases, the person was lying in hospital at the time, having suffered a heart attack. I can tell you that it did not help his recovery to get a notice saying that his medical report was not sufficient to warrant a further investigation in regard to a special allowance. I feel there is no need to go so thoroughly into the medical report at the start. They are usually brought up to St. Bricin's and there are thorough and exhaustive tests. It is only at that stage that a pension is granted.

Those are the two principal grouses or complaints I hear. There is one other which comes to mind. Comparing the Minister's Department with other Departments, when an appeal is made on means I am never very happy about it. I never feel that the case has been given an exhaustive test. It may be that the Department are so thorough that mistakes are never made, but to go back to the Department of Social Welfare I always feel that in quite a number of cases you get something on appeal to that Department.

I know a man whose appeal for a special allowance was turned down because he was £3 over the limit. I felt I put up quite a good case for him. He is a farmer. I brought in other factors, and I felt they would warrant bringing his means down, but when the return came back it was the same as before. I should like to feel a bit happier about appeals on the ground of means.

To recap, I should like to compliment the Minister on the increases he has given during his term of office. I ask him to see if anything can be done about the delays in regard to special allowances, and not to go so thoroughly into the medical report at the start. I should also like him to look into cases that are slightly over the means so that we could be confident that appeals are fully investigated.

Mr. Sherwin:

I always speak about these matters. I suppose, being an old IRA man, I naturally have the old IRA in mind more than the regular Army. There are other speakers who will speak about the viewpoint of the regular Army. I always speak about the raw deal people got in the past and I intend to refer to it again without going into detail.

I have here a letter I received from Sligo. It is an example of the type of person I say got a raw deal. The letter reads:

Please excuse me for writing you this letter but as an old IRA man who has been badly treated I have read on several occasions where you championed the cause of the old IRA. I have made big sacrifices to help the Republican cause since 1915. I was in the Irish Volunteers in 1916. We had a small company of about 40 members. I was in jail in 1920 being in the dock with the late Brigadier Frank Carty, TD, and was also 12 months in internment camps including Castlebar Jail, Claremorris and Newbridge Camp. ...I would be grateful if you could let me know the best approach to make to the Minister to have my case reopened as I have received no pension so far. I got a pre-truce medal.

That is the sort of case I have complained about. This man served during the Tan War and was in jail during the Tan War. He was also in jail during the Civil War and he got nothing. He must have lost a tremendous amount. If he was a young ambitious man he ruined his career. Young people now attend technical schools to prepare themselves for jobs for which they must have training. Some time ago many young men threw their future to the winds. They attended parades. They were in jail in the Tan War and they were in jail in the Civil War but they got nothing. They are the people I am always shouting about. They are the people I say should have got some gratuity.

I do not expect that at this stage anything will be done but I want to draw attention to the fact that there are thousands of people who got a raw deal. They should be treated generously at this stage. The special allowances should be eased a bit to include them. There should also be an old soldiers' home, or a ward in St. Bricin's or somewhere else, where an old IRA man could go when he reached a certain age or when he was beyond employment because of illness. There are old IRA men in St. Kevin's and they die there. There are a number of them with a little bit of mental trouble in St. Brendan's. If those men wanted to live the last few years of their lives in a hospital they should be able to do so as is the case in Britain but there is no recognition for them.

There are no laurels to be won in a civil war. It is hard to make a case for a pension for shooting your brother. Nevertheless, men who got a pension for the Tan War were also granted a pension for the Civil War. In other words, whereas in one case it did not matter whom you fired at—whether it was the enemy or your brother—you got a pension, but if you were not what was called an active member in the Tan War, if you attended parades every day during the Tan War and stood waiting to be called on active service, you were told that you would not get a pension. In other words, you had to shoot somebody and we must all admit that you cannot go and shoot people on your own. You have to be told to go to shoot someone.

The officers got a pension if they had command of so many men. In some cases, officers got pensions for doing nothing. They got pensions for not encouraging the men to do something and the poor men who were waiting to be ordered out got nothing. A man could have been active during the Tan War, on parade three nights a week, neglecting his business and his future, and get nothing. He got nothing for the Civil War although he had been a member in the Tan War. The other fellow who threw one bomb, perhaps, in the Tan War is regarded as having been active and gets recognition for service in the Civil War.

Why was service in the Civil War recognised in respect of anyone? If it was recognised in some cases, why was not credit given in other cases? A man could have been a member throughout the Tan War, and have fought throughout the Civil War, have suffered a long term of imprisonment, have been ruined in business, and would not get a penny. That is the type of case referred to in the letter I have mentioned.

I am not expecting much at this late stage. The Minister admits that these people are dying off, that the service and disability pensions are diminishing. He says the special allowances are increasing. They will diminish also at some stage. The Minister ought to be more generous and ease the conditions for the special allowance. He should do something about these people who are in mental homes and institutions.

Reference was made by the last speaker to appeals against decisions. I am aware of cases where men applied in respect of a disability and were turned down and, on appeal, were turned down again. The point is, they were turned down by the same doctors. I maintain that that is not right. In a court of law an appeal is made to a different judge, not the judge who heard the case in the lower court. I understand that where insurance companies are concerned, in the case of an appeal a different medical board hears the appeal. It is not fair that in the case of applicants for disability pensions it should be the doctors who turned down the original application who should deal with the appeal. How can a doctor who has turned down a case be expected to admit later on that he was wrong? It is too much to ask of human nature. There ought to be a different board for appeals.

There are supposed to be 50,000 or 60,000 medal holders. In the event of their making application for a special allowance their cases are re-examined. The mere possession of a medal will not be sufficient. As years go by, there will be people applying for a special allowance. Where will the proof be that their case is genuine? I have asked the Minister and will ask him again to examine all these cases now and, where he is satisfied with the evidence, issue a certificate. The person concerned should have the assurance that he will not be regarded at some future stage as not a genuine case. As things stand, a fake can have a medal and prove membership. The only way a person can prove he is a genuine member is by the production of a certificate that he has been examined by a board. Without a certificate, a genuine member feels that he may be regarded as a fake.

Mr. P. O'Donnell:

There is one thing which strikes me about the debate on this Estimate each year. We hear from successive Ministers about the dwindling number of applicants but we also hear from Deputies about the number of genuine cases they know in which pensions or special allowances are not being granted. We have heard of such cases from Deputy Crinion of the Fianna Fáil Party, from Deputy Sherwin, an Independent, and we will hear of them from Deputies on this side of the House. Deputy Crinion has gone so far as to tell the Minister that he knows one case with which he has been dealing for 12 months and a special allowance has not yet been granted. Deputy Crinion is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, as is the Minister, and if he cannot get a special allowance within a year, the people in Opposition have not much chance of getting one before the poor unfortunate veteran passes on.

I should like the Minister to try to explain what is the cause of the delay. Deputy Sherwin has pointed out that before a medal is granted full inquiries are made and there is a thorough examination of the facts and, if the authorities are satisfied, a service medal is granted. At the time of the issue of that medal the recipient may not qualify for or may not wish to seek a special allowance but as time goes on and as physical disability sets in and he is no longer able to care for himself he decides to seek what he is duly and legally entitled to, a special allowance, and he finds that one of the conditions precedent for the allowance is another investigation as to whether he is entitled to the medal or otherwise. As the Deputy has pointed out, many certifying officers have passed on to their eternal reward and there is no person to confirm that the applicant gave active service or service which entitled him to a medal.

I know of a case of P.J. McGlinchey of Moneelan Crossroads, Killygordon. That man was granted a Black and Tan medal some years ago. His service was certified by the late Commandant Eddie McBrearty, a man who did his part for his country, both in the National Army and pre-Truce. McBrearty passed on, unfortunately. McGlinchey found his health deteriorating and applied for a special allowance and after some considerable time, was told that not only was he not entitled to a special allowance but that his medal was being withdrawn.

That was a case where there was no person left to re-certify the pre-Truce service. His commanding officer had passed on. Not only did he find himself without a special allowance, but he found himself without a medal. That is very unfair.

There must be some reason why the Minister is suspicious of medal holders. There must have been a time when medals were dished out ad lib. I should like to know when that time was. It was always said that at one stage in a certain county the secretary of a Fianna Fáil cumann had applications for medals certified in blank and that as you joined the cumann, you were handed out these certificates. I do not know whether that is true or not but it is very suspicious when we now are re-investigating the eligibility or otherwise of applicants for these pre-Truce medals.

Again, if a man is entitled to a medal and has received it according to the law of the country, surely there are only two other matters to be investigated: (1) his physical condition and (2) his means? Most of these unfortunate people have been in receipt of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, national health assistance or some other help from the State. Their means are known in advance in the majority of cases to the investigation officer. In the minority, it should surely be possible to assess the means of unfortunate applicants for a special allowance in a few weeks. It should not take very long to investigate their means. These people should have priority over applicants for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. They are few in number. A special effort should be made to expedite the investigation of their means.

Again, it is a condition precedent of their application that they must be physically unfit to earn a livelihood. In most cases, it is a case of res ipsa loquitur; you have only to look at them and you know. Generally their applications are accompanied by certificates from one or two doctors. These doctors know that their findings will be confirmed or affirmed by military medical specialists. Surely it should not be months—aye, and even years—before these applicants are called before a board to confirm whether they are physically disabled or otherwise.

I know of one case in which I was seeking a special allowance for a poor man in Kincasslagh. He got an allowance of £80 after 12 months. The notification came on the morning of his funeral. Actually the cheque for the first portion of the allowance also came on the morning of his funeral. It was returned and the authorities would not even permit the funeral expenses to come out of it. These are sad cases. They are cases which should never occur.

I know another case, a veteran of the Black and Tan war, a veteran of the Civil War, a veteran who was opposed to the National Army in the Civil War, a man who played an honourable part both before and after the Truce, a man called James Gallagher from Calhame. That man was in receipt of an old age pension. He applied for, and obtained, a special allowance. He was a bedridden cripple. After some years, it was discovered by the investigation officer that his wife was earning a few pounds a week knitting. What was the result? His special allowance was withdrawn. That was bad enough, but the other day he received a civil bill from the Minister for Defence for a couple of hundred pounds. I warn the Minister that if he sends his bailiffs in to execute a decree against Jimmy Gallagher, they go in at their peril. That is the thanks this poor man gets for the service he rendered to this State.

Mark you, not only are the Government not satisfied with victimising Jimmy Gallagher by suing him for the return of his special allowance but by post yesterday he received a letter from the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, informing him he was going to issue a civil bill for the return of the old age pension, and all because the wife of that unfortunate veteran was industrious enough to try to earn a few shillings for herself. I would ask the Minister to look into that particular case and to issue instructions that the civil bill be withdrawn and not let it go through the circuit court.

The Minister can keep in touch closely with the means of these unfortunate veterans, but I should like him to go a little further and keep in even even closer touch with them from another point of view. Quite recently in Dungloe, two veterans of the Black and Tan war, one, a colonel in the National Army, Colonel Neil O'Donnell, and the other, Lieutenant Eddie Gallagher, both passed to their eternal reward. No guard of honour of any description was supplied by the Defence Forces. There was not even a Tricolour to wrap around their coffins.

Mr. Bartley:

Surely the Deputy does not blame the Department for that? Surely there is something wrong locally if these men were buried without honours? The grievance there is local.

Mr. O'Donnell:

I agree, but the Minister should instruct the FCA to report to him. I do not blame the Minister or the Department. All I am asking is that the FCA should keep in touch with events like that.

Mr. Dolan:

Why do the Old IRA not do it?

Mr. P. O'Donnell:

I do not think there are many left.

Mr. Coughlan:

They are increasing in my area.

General MacEoin:

We would make a damn poor firing party this minute.

Mr. P. O'Donnell:

There are very few of them left.

Mr. Dolan:

I know, but it is usual, when such a person dies, to have a guard of honour.

Mr. P. O'Donnell:

I do not blame the Minister or the Department for the absence of honours to these two soldiers, but I suggest that the Minister, through the FCA, who are in every parish in the country, should be informed when a veteran passes on, a veteran who is entitled to certain military honours. It should be the duty of the FCA to ensure that these honours are rendered. I only hope that as a result of what I have said now, this will never occur again. I do not care what side they took; so long as they are veterans of an Irish Defence Force, they are entitled to these honours. I want to ensure that they receive them.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is the number of pre-Truce IRA who took no side in the Civil War but who emigrated to the United States for reasons of their own. Many of these were entitled to military service pensions. Because of lack of communicaation with the home country, it was only when it was too late to apply that they became aware of the benefits to which they were rightfully entitled. I know one case, the case of a man named McDevitt from the Kilcar district, who had very honourable pre-Truce service and who emigrated to the United States. I later met him in New Jersey and he was unaware of the fact that he was entitled to a pre-Truce pension until I explained it to him. Then he was, unfortunately, too late to apply. There should be, if necessary, an amending Act to enable those people who were unaware of their rights to apply for their allowances and for at least a current pension.

Mind you, there is a lot in what Deputy Sherwin says that pensions or special allowances should be payable from the date of application. If it takes a year or two to investigate an application for a special allowance, let it take that time, but when the award is made, let it be retrospective as is done in the matter of old age pensions and with applications under the Social Welfare Acts. It is something the Minister should look into. As I said earlier, the numbers of old IRA are dwindling fast. Let us at least give them comfort in their old age.

Mr. Carroll:

I may be repeating much of what has been already said but I feel I am justified in appealing to the Minister to abolish the means test when dealing with pensions which are only the rightful rewards of service. On the last occasion I spoke on this question I mentioned the case of a veteran of the Tan War, a medal and bar holder, who emigrated to the United States. He became a member of General Eisenhower's staff and later was severely wounded. He survived and got the maximum military disability pension. He can now travel the world, follow the sun with his family, at the expense of the American Government.

When we were joining the Fianna or the Volunteers over 40 years ago, there was no means test. The rich man's son, if he felt so inclined, and the poor man's son, when behind the gun, whether tall or small, rich or poor, were equal. Only this afternoon I had a communication from the Minister's Department, a stereotyped form, in which they say they are not satisfied about two points in the application of a man now living in England. I would bring to the Minister's memory the Mass in the Church of the Holy Trinity on 8th December, 1961, when I had with me a former member of the Fianna, an applicant for a special allowance. I had arranged for the former Adjutant-General of the Fianna and a former member of the Fianna Advisory Board, Mr. Joseph Reynolds, to explain orally to the Minister the case of the applicant, Mr. Joseph Doyle. He had been not only a member of Fianna Éireann from the early years but particularly during the vital three months before 11th July, 1921. That man is still alive but he has still not got his special allowance.

I thought the procedure of the FBI in the United States was wonderful, but I do not believe it can compare with the ability of the officials of the Department of Defence in this regard. I would urge the Minister to do everything possible to get rid of this horrible means test. Surely he and every other Deputy cannot but regard it as unfair? It is a stigma in that people who otherwise would not do so must apply for a pension or allowance, because the award of it, they feel, is the only true proof of service. I am not personally concerned, thank God, with disability now but when I was, through a lung collapse, I put my trust in God and not in the Minister for Defence. I thought the Minister, being himself an old IRA man, would not be influenced by the same considerations as influenced his predecessors.

Another matter I should like to refer to has already been dealt with by Deputy MacEoin. I refer to the officers who got the option of accepting two years' pay at retirement. One of those, a former member of Fianna Éireann, was struck down by cancer three months after he accepted the option of two years' pay. His hospitalisation cost £250 and had he not accepted it, of course, he would have been hospitalised by the State. He would have been in the service, and would surely have received promotion to the rank of colonel. His period under canvas during the Emergency would have been a factor in his application for hospital treatment.

There is another case which may be a special one but which is worthy of investigation. If the Minister cannot do it himself, he should revert to the old idea and possibly find some Old IRA officer who would be able to get the facts and put them before the Minister. There cannot be so many left now. We all agree on that.

In differing from Deputy O'Donnell, I must say that I, as liaison officer, have got the greatest co-operation from the Army authorities in regard to firing parties, even when I rang as late as 11.30 p.m. It was my suggestion, certainly in Dublin, that we eliminate the firing parties that we used to have, in co-operation with the Board of Works, because on occasions at a military funeral, you had one man six feet tall, another 5 feet six inches and all ageing, and as the Minister said, they were not giving the impression to visitors that we would like to give. It is more fitting that the present Army pay tribute to the old Army. They do it very well. My experience is that all the facilities were granted to me, flag, bugle and trumpet if required. I say that so that it may not appear that I am always complaining.

The Minister knows the position and in those special cases, I do not believe that a man who must be aged about 60 now will go to all the trouble to get the £80 per year, if he is able to do without it. Some may disagree with that view. The cases in respect of which I have made application have been genuine cases and it makes me wonder how any Minister, any former old IRA man, can sit back quietly knowing these things are happening because in another 10 or 15 years, they must all be gone. Perhaps, it will be just the same as with the Military Hospital Bureau.

I again appeal to the Minister in regard to military service pensions, special allowances and all matters concerning remuneration for service, to let the applicant go to St. Bricin's and submit himself to any test but to leave out the means test. We have had too much of that in this country.

Mr. Dolan:

Níl mórán le rá agam ar an ábhar seo ach amháin an méid seo. Ba mhaith liom go bhféadadh an tAire pinsean níos fearr a thabhairt do na daoine a throid ar son na tíre. Tuigim, fé mar adubhairt Teachtaí eile, ná fuil mórán de na daoine sin fágtha anois agus, ar an ábhar sin amháin, ba cheart dúinn méadú, más féidir, ar an bpinsean. Rud deacair, contúirteach ab ea é an t-am sin dul amach ag troid ar son na tíre ní amháin i gcoinne saighdiúirí ach i gcoinne na bpóilíní chomh maith. Ní féidir aon chomparáid a dhéanamh idir an t-am sin agus an troid a deineadh san gcogadh deiridh. Bhí an chuid seo den tír saor an uair sin. Ní h-amhlaidh a bhí sa tsean am. Tá a fhios agam gur thug na daoine a bhí san Arm and san FCA seirbhís an-mhaith le linn an chogaidh ach bhí tacaíocht na ndaoine leo. Ní raibh sé sin le fáil fadó.

Iarraim ar an Aire breis a thabairt dona daoine seo. Bhéinn sásta cuid beag a thógaint ón méid atá ag dul don Airm agus é a roint ar na daoine seo. Tuigeann gach éinne gur ins na scoileanna agus na coláistí a bhí cuid mhaith dhíobh agus gur fhág siad na ranganna agus gur imíodar amach ag troid. Níor éirigh leo chomh maith ina dhiaidh sin. Chailleadar mórán. Níorbh fhuirist dóibh airgead d'fháil. Anois, ós rud é go bhfuil clann aca agus iad gan mórán airgid, teastaíonn an t-airgead uatha. Ni maith leo cigirí agus dochtúirí ag teacht ag cur ceisteanna ortha.

Chuir sé íonadh orm an méid adubhairt an Teachta Ó Domhnaill mar gheall ar easba gardaí onóra. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir a leithéid titim amach in aon condae, agus ní dóigh liom gur ceart an milléan a chur ar an Arm. Is dócha go mbraitheann sé ar na daoine atá in a gcónaí sa cheantar. Muna bhfuil na daoine san áit chun gárda mar is cóir do sholáthar, táim cinnte—agus do tharla sé go minic im chondae féin—go mbeadh an tArm agus an FCA lán-toilteanach cabhair a thabhairt. Aontaíom leis an Teachta Ó Cearbhaill go bhfuil an tArm—go mór-mhór na daoine ar a bhfuil aithne agam—lan-tsásta gach cabhair a chur ar fáil i gcónaí chun gárda a sholáthar do shean-shaighdiúir a throid ar son a thíre. Uaireanta is fearr le muintir an tsean-IRA an gárda a sheasamh iad féin, gan bacadh leis an Arm. Is dócha gur mar sin atá sé.

Iarraim ar an Aire brostú agus deifriú a chur ar na daoine ins na hoifigí, na daoine a éisteann cásanna na ndaoine atá ag lorg pinsean, céacu daoine iad atá breoite nó gonta, chun na pinsin a thabhairt dóibh agus, más féidir in aon chor é, pinsean níos fearr.

Mr. McLaughlin:

I regret to have to say that the number is dwindling very much each year of those who gave us the freedom we enjoy today. Remember, whether they were on the Republican side or the Free State side, I still never lost my respect for the young men and their officers who went out and led the fight from 1916 until 1921 to give us the freedom we enjoy to-day. I meet them now even in their limited numbers.

It is sad to think that regardless of what side they took, they are still hoping at this late stage that some Government will come to their rescue and take them out of the poverty in which they find themselves. Some of these men were wounded and mained and have found it very difficult to eke out a living.

I have in mind men such as Frank Brennan, Colga, Sligo, and Michael Cunningham, Cartron, Fivemilebourne. Though they gave active service, they have been refused a special allowance. I have another man in mind who lives convenient to Sligo, a very active man on the Republican side. He did his utmost, for many years past, to get a pension. The result has always been the same. He has been refused a pension. He is now a worn-out man, hoping he will reach 70 as quickly as possible when at least he will get 32/6d.

It is a sad thing to have to say about a man who took such an active part in the fight for the freedom of this country that he should be hoping at this stage to reach 70 years of age so that he might get 32/6d. because he has been disabled and is poor and unable to eke out a living on the farm. I can give the Minister that man's name. He came to see me some eight or 12 months ago and I did my best for him. I told him I did not care which Party he supported and that, as a Deputy, I should be only too glad to do anything I could for him. He was terribly grateful for anything I had done but the reply was the same. The man, who was bordering on 70 years of age, had to go home and hope he would reach that age as quickly as possible and get his pension.

Another case, more tragic than any of them, is that of a man who took a very active part and got all the recommendations that could be given from his commanding officer. He was fortunate enough to qualify for the Garda Síochána at the time of the formation of that force. He came up here and, because he had a varicose vein, he was sent into hospital and told he would have to have an operation. I think he was sent from the Depot. He entered hospital here in Dublin—I suppose the Garda hospital —but the operation was not a success. He was sent home an invalid for the remainder of his life. That is another common type of case I meet with in my constituency.

The man in question has been troubled with a stiff leg ever since the days when the Garda Síochána was formed in 1922. He lives on a smallholding on the hills of County Leitrim. Some years ago, he made application for this allowance. He became so disgusted with the replies he was receiving that he abandoned it completely. Then, as times were going hard with him, he thawed out a little and said he would have another try. He wrote to me and I recommended him. I ask the Minister to give consideration to this man. He is Michael Kerrigan, of Calry, Keelougeeboy. That man became invalided while trying to play his part in giving us the freedom and comforts we enjoy today as Irish citizens. There is also the case of Michael McGoldrick, Cloonaquinn, Manorhamilton.

I urge the Minister that, whatever else may be done, more money should be allocated for pensions for those men. I did not know that these unfortunate men who gave such service to this country were in such a plight at this stage and that their applications were being turned down, for what reason I do not know. Their health is broken. Their circumstances are bad. While other Deputies were speaking, five or six names came to my mind offhand. I suppose that if I went over some of my correspondence, I would find many more names to swell that list.

People who were member of the old IRA should not have been disqualified simply because they had not three months' service in the latter part of the Anglo-Irish war. I think that was a very unfair clause to insert into the rules and regulations. Many of those people could have found themselves suffering from ill-health. Many of those people might have been very actively engaged otherwise and their names might not have been entered on the proper list at that time. It can be very disappointing to them to be told that simply because their names were not recorded for the last three months of the Anglo-Irish war, their applications are disallowed and they can get no allowance.

Those are cases that come to my mind. The position is certainly very disappointing. As I said before, were it not for those people, we should possibly have uniformed men with guns in their pockets keeping law and order, men who would possibly hustle us around, rather than the type of Garda who is present in our public gallery today. Were it not for the sacrifice of the men on whose behalf I plead, and others like them, we should have to be very submissive and certainly we should not be able to go around with the same air of freedom as we enjoy today in Dáil Éireann and throughout the country.

We have our own Garda force; we have our own Army; we have our own Parliament. Everything we have is our own. To whom is all that due? It is due to those men who fought and sent the British from this country after 700 years. It was tried time and time again by men who were really good but it was never successful until the group of people who banded themselves together in our generation took up the fight for Irish freedom. With very little to work on, no money, no arms only what were brought in in the dead of night and smuggled in in a big and a small way, these men achieved a success which so many generations had fought for.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd April, 1963.