On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy Corry gave notice that he wished to raise the subject matter of Question No. 42 on today's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate. - Payment of Cobh Special Allowances.
I regret having to raise this matter but I must say that during the past 12 months we have had a lot of complaints about the Minister's Department in connection with delays in regard to special allowances, and other matters as well. The atmosphere there seems to be: "Oh, well, it is time for those old lads to be dead and we will give them nothing". On at least two occasions I had special allowances notified either on the day of the funeral, or a couple of days afterwards, of the applicant. An allowance is of very little use to a dead man. On another occasion, we had the extraordinary position of a man having got this special allowance of about £70 for services to this nation at a time when it wanted men, suddenly cut to £28.
Surely that has no reference to Question No. 42?
I am giving the reasons why I had to raise this matter.
In respect of certain people.
I am dealing with the atmosphere that creates that delay, when you have the Department coming along and cutting a man's allowance down to £28——
The Deputy should confine himself to the matter on the Order Paper.
In this particular case, I am particularly concerned about Denis Bowen who gave good service to this nation in its hour of need. He was in the Cork No. 1 Brigade. He was an ordinary agricultural labourer and when everything was over, he went back to that occupation. Two years ago, that man became ill and when he was visited by his doctor, he was told that he would have to cease work as an agricultural labourer. He became worse and in April, 1962, he became completely incapacitated. The cause of his illness was gastric ulcers. He was in Cobh Hospital for two months between April and July, 1962. On 3rd August, he was visited by the inspector who declared him fit. In November and December last year, he was an inmate of the Mercy Hospital, Cork, and in February and March of this year, he was an inmate of the North Infirmary, Cork. I have here a certificate dated 19th April, 1963 which reads:
This is to certify that the above named patient is suffering from gastric ulcers and is completely unfit for work.
That is the man who, the Army authorities inform us, should be working in his usual occupation, a man who for the past three years was unable to work and who left his occupation. He worked night and day for this nation when she needed men. It is outrageous that this should happen here to-day. After all, such men were responsible for setting up this Republic. Such men fought for it; many gave their lives or their health for it. There are not so many of them left now and not a week passes that we have not to attend two or three funerals of those who are left. The least we can expect from an Irish Department of Defence is that they will give decent treatment to the few who are left. They deserve better from the nation than to be told after three years' illness that they are still fit to work. Despite the fact that the doctors in Cobh Hospital, in the Mercy Hospital and in the North Infirmary, and the medical officer for Cobh, all certified that this man is unfit for work, and his own medical officer two years ago warned him not to work, the Department still says he is not entitled to a special allowance or anything else—he can live on grass until he pegs out like the rest of them who are gone.
I think that in the case of Deputy Corry and any other Deputy interested in this question of looking after the old soldiers—and there are a good many Deputies who are—it would be much fairer when they are generalising, if they would generalise on what, after all, Deputy Corry must admit is the general experience of these favourable decisions. I find that Deputies, some Deputies anyway, concentrate on the cases that do not go so well for them and such cases stand out more prominently in their minds than the very many good and generous decisions which they received. Now, I do not want to argue with Deputy Corry as to what the medical condition of this particular applicant is. I do not know the man personally and in any event, whether I knew the applicant or not, it is not my knowledge of his medical condition that counts but the opinion conveyed officially to me by the Army Pensions Board on which there are two medical men as members.
With regard to this question of delay, Deputy Corry might advert to the second of the two cases he mentioned to-day. He will find that the case was dealt with in the most expeditious way. The application was made on 19th January and inside three months, a favourable decision was given, although the medical and means investigations had to be carried out.
If there is anything in what Deputy Corry had to say this afternoon in reply to the answer which I gave him, or if there is anything in what he has said just now of any material value to the Army Pensions Board and which has not already been brought to their notice, I assure him that I shall have it brought to their notice now. But I must repeat that I cannot give decisions against the weight of the medical evidence offered to me. I have indicated on more than one occasion to the House that in matters in which I have a choice and where I think the balance is in favour of an applicant, my sympathies certainly lie with the applicant but I cannot exercise a discretion in the very important matter of medical assessment. A Board has been set up for that purpose and, whether I like it or not, I must have regard to what they say about the medical condition of an applicant.
The evidence before me with regard to certain matters of disability from which Deputy Corry thinks this applicant is suffering is entirely contrary to what Deputy Corry says. What am I to do in a matter of disease? Am I to accept Deputy Corry's lay opinion on it and attach more importance to it than to what the official medical evidence conveys?
I am giving four medical doctors.
There is my difficulty. All I can say to Deputy Corry is that I will have conveyed to the Board his latest representations on behalf of this applicant, Denis Bowen, and if there is anything in them that will materially affect the decision already given, I am quite satisfied that the Board will concede the benefit of any doubt they may have. I am afraid I cannot say any more to the Deputy.
Would the Minister have the applicant re-examined?
I shall consider that.
My opinion is that the history of the case was not known to whatever medical officer considered it in the Minister's Department. I can assure the Minister that I have raised this matter with very great reluctance. He is one old-IRA man and I am another and this delay should not occur.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25th April, 1963.