Public Business. - Army Pensions Bill, 1932—Third Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I move:—
Section 8, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Every application for the grant under this Part of this Act of a pension or gratuity to or an allowance or gratuity in respect of a person alleged to have been a member of an organisation to which this Part of the Act applies shall be accompanied by a declaration in the form to be prescribed by the Minister and certified in such manner as the Minister shall prescribe that the applicant is not and will not become a member nor associate in the formation or maintenance of an organisation, association or other body which purports to be a military force not established or maintained as such by or under the law of Saorstát Eireann and the Minister shall not refer to the Registration Board any application not accompanied by such declaration.
The qualification of an applicant for a pension under this Bill amongst other things is that he must have been at one time or other connected with the organisations mentioned in Section 4—the Irish Republican Army, the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army, Fianna Eireann, the Hibernian Rifles and Cumann na mBán. I am approaching this matter entirely from the taxpayers' point of view. The list embodies what I consider to be the militant republican bodies in this country as distinct from the present Government and Cumann na nGaedheal, which I consider to be constitutional republicans. One body is republican, another is more republican and the militant body is the most republican of all. Viewing the matter from the taxpayers' point of view, naturally a man connected with these organisations would be inclined not to consider himself bound by the decision of the electorate but rather by the decision of the particular organisation to which he belongs. I am not blaming any man for having a particular idea about what form of government this country should have. In fact, many of the men who went out in 1916 and risked their lives against bullets and as rebels against the British Government deserve every credit. I am not standing here to say anything at all against the idea of giving them pensions. However, it has to be considered that the present Government is avowedly republican. It is constitutional and is willing to abide by the decision of the electorate. These men who are now to be given pensions as an expedient for goodwill amongst ourselves, and for the allaying of bitterness, hitherto considered themselves capable of arming themselves without authority. Now, when making application for pensions, they should agree that in future their political aspirations should be attained by the decision of the electorate. The taxpayers have to pay £30,000 yearly for these pensions and if this is a final demand no one can grumble very much. At the present time we see certain activities—I do not know if they belong to these organisations or not— and people arming and drilling. The Minister can contradict me if what I am saying is not true. I cannot say whether these people are connected with these organisations or not, but they are evidently not arming and drilling without being prepared for a fight. We wish this to be a final settlement and we do not wish to have any more fights amongst ourselves. It is in the taxpayers' interests I am asking that applicants for pensions might subscribe to the view that the Government of this country in the last analysis must depend upon the electorate, and that for that reason they should not be connected with any of these military bodies which before the split did good work. I want to say that I view all these bodies, Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil, Cumann na mBán, in the same category. They were all one until they were split up. All originally had the same idea of having a republic. I am looking at the matter as one who is outside that arena. I came here from another country and I did not get mixed up in the struggle. As the man in the street has to pay these pensions he hopes that we will now be finished with this business when this Bill is passed, that there will be no more fighting, and that everyone will recognise that if the electorate wants a republic it can so decide. If it does so decide no one will be better pleased than I am.
Would the Minister state definitely if the Irish Republican Army and Cumann na mBán, to mention two of these organisations, are illegal organisations at the present time?
Some of us would like to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to the amendment.
I was surprised at Senator Wilson's speech, because really he did not deal with the amendment. I suppose we are to take it for granted that he, at least, read the amendment.
I was interested in reading it because other amendments on the paper in Senator Wilson's name are word for word similar to amendments that were in the Dáil, with the exception of amendments 7 and 8. I pointed out in the Dáil that the amendment we are discussing relates to Section 12, that it applied to Parts I and II, but did not apply to Part III of the Bill. It was proposed in the Dáil to make a difference between two sets of men who are to obey the laws of the country to whom the section should apply; that one side could be as illegal as it pleased and get pensions and that a small section, covered by the first two Parts of the Bill, were not to be given the same liberty. For my part, I do not want any section of pensioners to be illegal. We have incorporated in our Bill a section from the 1923 Act, Section 11, which states:
If any officer or soldier to whom a wound pension has been granted under this Act is, during the continuance of such pension, convicted of any crime or offence by a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann and is sentenced by that court for that crime or offence to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term exceeding three months, or to penal servitude for any term, the wound pension granted to such officer or soldier, and also any further pension granted to him on account of his being a married man, shall be forfeited as from the date of such conviction.
There is a further provision in the same section:
If any person to whom any pension, allowance or continuing gratuity has been granted is guilty of any disgraceful conduct during the continuance of such pension, allowance or gratuity, the Minister may, if, in his opinion, the circumstances of the case warrant his so doing, terminate the pension, allowance or gratuity granted to such person.
I think that is all any fair-minded person would want. The Act of 1923 refers to wound pensions. The Military Service Pensions Act gives pensions for service only, and wounds are not taken into account, but there is a section in the 1927 Bill and, if, instead of incorporating this Section 11 of the 1923 Act, we had incorporated it, I would say that Senators would justly be entitled to view our proposals with suspicion. Section 2, sub-section (3) of the Military Service Pensions Act of 1924 says:
The Minister may in his absolute discretion refuse to issue a certificate of military service to any applicant who shall have, prior to the making of the report by the Board of Assessors, been sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term exceeding three months or any term of penal servitude.
The Military Service Pensions Act sets out there that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant or refuse a pension to a person who has been convicted by a competent court. We have taken in the section which says that any person sentenced to penal servitude would automatically forfeit his pension and that, if he is guilty of disgraceful conduct, the same thing will happen. Senator Wilson's amendment, the first part of it, is in the same terms as the amendment in the Dáil and it carries through the spirit of the Military Service Act that certain sections may do anything they like, and still be entitled to a pension, but that another section must never be entitled to a pension, and the amendment only relates to the first two portions of the Bill we are discussing.
Remember that this Bill deals with more than the Republican side of the civil war and that, under Part III, it benefits the position of soldiers who fought on the Free State side in the civil war. There are certain cases in which pension awards have been marked final; they cannot be reopened and great hardship has resulted to some of the men concerned. Under Part III, we are extending the Acts of 1923 and 1927. I do not know whether Senator Wilson understood the full significance of the words "this Part of the Act" in his own amendment, but it simply means that he is going to bring the civil war side into this and is allowing the other side, if they wish, to join any organisation which purports to be a military force while still drawing their pension.
There is another point in which I was interested and it is that, while the other amendments are, as I said, exactly word for word, there seems to be some deliberate intention, in the second part of the Senator's amendment, not to cover people covered by the amendment put down in the Dáil. In the amendment put down in the Dáil, the applicant had to give the Minister a certificate that he is not a member of any organisation which, according to law in Saorstát Eireann is unlawful, while Senator Wilson's amendment prescribes that an applicant has to furnish a certificate that he "is not and will not become a member nor associate in the formation or maintenance of any organisation, association or other body which purports to be a military force not established or maintained by or under the law of Saorstát Eireann." Senator Wilson's amendment sets out that an applicant must certify that he is not a member of any organisation which purports to be or holds itself out to be—it can be anything it likes but it must not purport to be—a military force. If Senator Wilson wants to start a revolutionary organisation and still draw his pension, all he would have to do would be to hold himself out as forming an association for sick and indigent cattle keepers or for healthy and unwealthy farmers, and, if it purported to be a non-military organisation, while actually it would be a real up-to-date revolutionary organisation, the Senator could draw his pension under the amendment.
I do not know whether that is what the Senator is driving at or not.
The Minister understands what I am driving at.
I cannot see why Senator Wilson took the trouble to exclude unlawful organisations from the full force of his amendment. He is not excluding all unlawful organisations; he is excluding only unlawful organisations which purport to be military organisations. I do not know why he narrowed down the terms of the amendment to that. Apart altogether from these considerations, I am altogether against this signing of the form business. First of all, it will allow the snake who will not admit that he is a member of a military or unlawful organisation to get away with it. I think it has a very bad effect and I believe it is altogether contrary to the spirit of democratic rule. After all, under democratic institutions, a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, and I think that we should act on the assumption that all the people in the country are going to obey the law until it is proved in court that they have disobeyed. If it is proved in a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann that a man has disobeyed the law and is drawing a pension, under our Bill he will automatically cease to draw that pension, and I think that that is really all that any reasonable person could want the Government to do in that respect. I know that the Senator did not mean it, but the full force of this amendment would mean that a man could commit any other crime under the sun or could have the full intention of committing any other crime and still be entitled to a pension. A man could apply for a pension having the full intention of robbing, of stealing, or of beating his wife or murdering his mother or anything else, and yet be entitled to the pension under the Senator's amendment and the Minister cannot stop him. I think the Senator should be satisfied with the Bill as it stands. It covers anything that might reasonably be required.
I am quite satisfied, from the Minister's statement, that the amendment will not effect any good purpose, but I was hoping that the statement of the Minister would have given something of his views point on these military organisations. If the Minister would give his viewpoint with regard to these organisations, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, because I see that, under the Acts which have been passed, a man loses his pension if he breaks the law and that, from the taxpayers' point of view, is sufficient for me.
Would the Minister answer the question I asked? It is, of course, well known that men are carrying arms and drilling constantly. Everybody knows that. Are these men acting illegally, and, if so, why are they not brought into the courts and made amenable for their crimes?
Is the Senator referring to the A.C.A.?
The President has explained time and again the Government attitude on armed organisations and that sort of thing. My belief is this, that, generally speaking, in regard to military organisations and illegal and unlawful organisations throughout the country, purely repressive measures will never squash them. The only thing we can do is so to alter the conditions under which people can live in this country that every man's hand will be behind the law and not against it. With regard to the general situation, I believe that all the forces in the country at the moment should support the Government and, if they will not accept that from a democratic point of view, I would simply talk to them in revolutionary terms and state that we are here with the full force of Government and we are going to see that it will be our word that will rule. The only way in which I can see this country can make progress is that the writ of the Government that is in for the time being and which is doing its utmost for the people, should run and that all the forces in the country should co-operate with it and allow it to control the situation. I do not think there is anything to fear in the situation.
That is only a pious hope on the part of the Minister. It is not an answer to my question.
We will do everything we can to put it into operation.
I am obliged to the Minister for his statement and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) Whenever a person in respect of whom a service certificate has been issued is examined by the Army Pensions Board and is at the date of his examination by that Board suffering from a disablement due to a wound attributable to military service, then—
(a) if the degree of such disablement (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) is at the date of his said examination not less than twenty per cent., such person may be granted a pension at the rate mentioned in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement in the first column of that Schedule, or
(b) if the degree of such disablement (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) is at the date of his said examination less than twenty per cent., such person may be granted a gratuity of such amount, not exceeding seventy-five pounds, as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall with the consent of the Minister for Finance determine.
(2) Whenever a person in respect of whom a service certificate has been issued is examined by the Army Pensions Board and is at the date of his examination by that Board suffering from a disease attributable to military service and the degree of disablement (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) is at the date of his said examination not less than the minimum degree of disablement, such person may be granted a pension at the rate mentioned in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act opposite the appropriate degree of disablement in the first column of that Schedule.
(3) If a person to whom a pension is granted under this section was married before the critical date as defined by the next following sub-section of this section and is at the date of the commencement of such pension a married man for the purposes of this Part of this Act, such person shall, for so long after such commencement as he continues to be a married man for those purposes be entitled to be paid and receive a married pension at the rate mentioned in the third column of the First Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement mentioned in the first column of that Schedule.
(4) For the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section the critical date shall be:—
(a) in the case of a person suffering from disablement due to a wound—the date on which he received such wound; and
(b) in the case of a person who is suffering from disablement due to a disease and was engaged in pre-truce military service only— the 1st day of July, 1922; and
(c) in the case of a person who is suffering from disablement due to disease and was engaged in post-truce military service (whether he was or was not also engaged in pre-truce military service)—the 1st day of October, 1924.
(5) Whenever a person in respect of whom a service certificate has been issued and who was engaged in post-truce military service (whether he was or was not also engaged in pre-truce military service) is examined by the Army Pensions Board and at the date of his examination by that Board either is suffering from a disablement due to a wound attributable to military service which is less than twenty per cent. or is not suffering from any such disablement, then, if the Minister is satisfied that such person, at any time before his said examination, suffered during a substantial period from a disablement due to a wound attributable to military service and substantially exceeding twenty per cent., and that the case of such person was one of special hardship, the Minister, if he thinks proper so to do having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may:—
(a) if such person is granted a gratuity of less than £75 under sub-section (1) of this section, grant to such person, in addition to the gratuity under the said sub-section (1), a gratuity of such amount, not exceeding the sum by which the gratuity under the said sub-section (1) falls short of £75, as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine, or
(b) if such person is not granted a gratuity under the said sub-section (1), grant to such person a gratuity of such amount not exceeding £75, as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine.
I move amendment 2:
Section 10, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 50-51 the words "second column of the First Schedule to this Act" and to substitute therefor the words "fourth column of the Second Schedule of the Army Pensions Act, 1927 (No. 12 of 1927)."
The sub-section with which this deals is sub-section (a) which provides that a pension is payable at the rate set out "in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act." The effect of the amendment will be to reduce the amount to which a pensioner will be entitled. The second schedule gives the scale as £150 for 100 per cent. disablement, graduating down to £30 for 20 per cent. disablement.
Under the former Pensions Acts the maximum pension for total disablement, that is 100 per cent. disablement, was £105. I am asking the Minister to substitute the reduced figure for the figure that is now in the second column. I may say that most of these amendments are based on the question of the amount, and I want to apply myself for a moment to the reasons why I think the amounts should be reduced. When these pensions were granted under the 1927 Act everybody knows that the cost of living was very considerably higher than it is to-day. Everybody knows that the income of the country was much greater than it is to-day. I maintain that the amount of £105 which was given under the old Military Pensions Act in the case of total disablement has a much greater money value or a much greater purchasing value than it had in 1927 and to that extent the pensioner is well looked after. The increased purchasing power of the money would compensate also for the fact that the pensioner lost seven years' or five years' pension which he might have got if he applied earlier. That is the point the Minister made the last day, that the increased figure was given to recompense the pensioner for the loss sustained by reason of the fact that he had not enjoyed a pension since 1927.
I am dealing with these amendments from the point of view of economy and the poverty of the country at the present time. I do not wish that it should go out that we are beggars in this country. We are nothing of the sort, but our resources at the moment are very much depleted. Our income in 1927 was estimated somewhere in the neighbourhood of £170,000,000. I am sure that our income at present would be very much less. It is from that point of view that I am asking the Minister to consider whether it would not be as much as this State could afford to give these pensions at the scales which were laid down in 1927. I am asking that now, not in any antagonistic spirit but rather from the point of view of the farmer who has been all the time grumbling at costs but who at this particular time is undoubtedly feeling the burden very severely. He is astonished at the manner in which costs are piling up daily in all Departments of the Government. I hope the Minister will see his way to meet the amendments.
We discussed the principle of all the amendments which the Senator has down here—the other amendments deal with the same matter—on the last day on Second Reading, and I pointed out our reasons for adopting this particular scale, which is 25 per cent. higher than that granted to privates and 25 per cent. less than that granted to officers under the former Acts. All these amendments are on the same lines. They wish to reduce the amounts to the level of the scale granted to privates. I want to assure Senator Wilson and other Senators here that the Government had very forcibly in mind the financial circumstances of the country when they arrived at this scale of pensions and at the date on which the pensions were to commence. From the point of view of bare justice, a good case can be made out for men who were in hospital, who were being kept by their people, and who were out of work for a period of eight or nine years. Some of these men were, I know, wounded as far back as 1919 and they have not got anything up to this stage. That is, they were wounded thirteen years ago. If we had come forward here with the proposal that the pension should date from the year in which the wound was received I think we might create some friction.
The Act of 1927 did not go back, and this is only five years after.
I know it did not, but suppose we had gone back to 1923. The Act of 1923 dealt with wounds received as far back as 1916 and the commencing date for pensions was a couple of years prior to the date of the Act. Under this Bill, the pensions will commence this year, and will not go back to 1927, 1923 or 1919. I think that if an insurance man went into the matter, seeing that the Bill deals with men who were wounded and whose likelihood of life has been shortened, he would say that it would not cost anything like the figure to adopt this scale that it would cost if we were to date the pensions back to 1927, 1923 or 1919. There is this, however, to be said, that if we had adopted the other scales— that is, to give a certain scale to officers and another scale to privates—the amount of money involved would be roughly the same as we are paying under this Bill. I think that when we are going to economise—and I agree that the expenses of Government should be cut down—we should not start here on those pensions which are very small, after all, for men who are completely disabled or pensions for families that have suffered a lot and undergone a lot of expense. I think that the Senator's amendment, if passed, would cause a lot of hardship and that, from the Exchequer point of view, it is not worth it. There are other Departments of State to which it would be a mere bagatelle to save the amount that would pay these people their pensions.
May I ask the Minister how many men will the first portion of the Bill embrace? Has he made any estimate of the number?
We had an estimate but it was a very rough estimate. It would cost roughly about £30,000.
I am not talking about the cost. I am asking the number of men who would be affected.
I forget the figure but we can get it later on.
I should like to know what number of Free State soldiers are likely to be eligible under this measure for pensions. Has any estimate been made of that?
Free State soldiers will come in under Section 23. A certain number of pensions are marked "final" at the moment, and although I know that a prima facie case has been made out in some of these cases that the man's disability has very much increased I cannot do anything. A man may have been assessed as suffering from a 20 per cent. or a 40 per cent. disability, and the Military Service Pensions Board said: “This man is not likely to get any worse and we will mark his pension ‘final.’” At the present date that man may be suffering from 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. disablement, yet nothing can be done. Under Section 23 of the Bill we propose to give the Minister power where it is apparent that the disability has increased to re-open the case and send it before the Military Pensions Board in order to get the disability assessed at its true value.
In view of the Minister's pronouncement I think everybody will be satisfied to support the Bill. After all, none of us have any feeling against those who took the field on the other side. I think I speak for the Opposition as well as the Government. I think it is only right that people who suffered in what they believed to be a good cause should be compensated by the State, especially in view of the statement of the Minister that the Irish people must remember that the Government for the time being is the supreme controlling body in the country. While we are in every way prepared to make recompense to those who have suffered in the past, it should be distinctly understood that all that is past and gone and that the usual democratic form of government that should apply to any free country will have to be allowed to function in Ireland. Under these circumstances I think we should be quite satisfied with what the Minister has said and pass the Bill as it stands.
I find myself in a difficulty now because one of my aides-de-camp has handed in his resignation. I do not want to put myself up as a stern and rigid dictator, to interfere with the lives of these poor people. I understood, at all events, that my Party were going to support me, but I find they are not going to support me now. We have had discussions about these things. These things are always discussed beforehand—and we decided to put this matter to a vote. It is not any question of antagonism at all. It is a question of economy, and we have got to do our business in endeavouring to lighten the burden on the taxpayers. That is not done in any spirit of antipathy towards these people at all.
Amendment put and declared defeated on a show of hands.
As all the amendments in my name hang on the same principle, I ask the House for permission to withdraw them when the time comes.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 not moved.
Sections 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 not moved.
Section 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
The Minister promised that when he came to the portion of the Bill dealing with forfeiture of pensions he would explain it, and I would be glad if he would do so.
I shall deal with that on Section 20.
Sections 13 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
Senators will notice that Sections 5, 6, and 9 to 15 of the Act of 1923 as amended by the Act of 1927 and this Bill and some other sections of the Act of 1927 are taken into the present Bill. These sections cover forfeiture and prevent pensions being assigned. There are sections which provide that a man cannot sign away his interest in a pension for a lump sum. Oftentimes pensioners get into difficulties, and would be prepared to mortgage their pensions for a lump sum of a couple of hundred pounds. In the Section 23 which we are incorporating into the Bill that is prevented. Also it is provided in Section 11 of the Act of '23 that any officer or soldier will forfeit his pension or allowance if found guilty, by a competent court of jurisdiction, and sentenced to a term of one month's imprisonment, with or without hard labour; also if the person is guilty of disgraceful conduct his pension can be terminated.
I stated my views with regard to this Bill on the Second Stage and they represented the views of some other members of the Seanad as well. My feeling is, that having taken the views I did, I do not want to interfere with the discretion of the Government generally. There is fear amongst a certain number of people on the question of good faith in the individual, and that the State could not properly consider giving pensions to persons planning to take up arms against itself. I agree with the Minister to the extent that I do not approve of asking people to sign pledges as to what they are going to do. In the first place they will not do it and secondly I do not think it is a reasonable or a proper way to go about it, and I have never favoured such a method. Still I am expressing what a good many people think when I say that there is a good deal of uneasiness felt in regard to this Bill. The State might find itself in the position of being compelled to give pensions to people planning to take up arms against them. The Minister, however, has made his position clear now, and that will be a relief to a good many people. Of course it depends—not perhaps in the strict sense of Senator Miss Browne's question—whether some action is or is not illegal. If a thing is illegal it would be possible for people to get imprisonment for doing it, but if the State does not make a thing illegal then it would be obviously absurd to refuse a person a pension for doing something that was not illegal. When we examine into it carefully I think the natural thing to provide is the losing of the pension by persons who do something illegal. I think Senator Wilson has acted wisely in withdrawing his amendment. In my view an attempt to force people to sign certain forms would be futile and unwise.
Question—"That Section 20 stand part of the Bill—" put and agreed to.
The remaining Sections 21 to 28 inclusive were agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported without amendments to the House.
Report Stage to be taken Wednesday, 7th December.
