Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 24 Aug 1934

Vol. 19 No. 3

Military Service Pensions Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The principle of this Bill is to provide service pensions for Volunteers who had active service in Easter Week or the Black-and-Tan war and who fought in the I.R.A. during the civil war. The scale of pensions is the same as that granted to the officers and men who obtained pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924. Since the introduction and passage of this Bill in the Dáil representations were made to the Government by a number of members of Fianna Fáil, and by other organisations, that men who had 1916 service only, or who had Black-and-Tan war service only, should also be granted pensions and that the Bill should be amended. That plea was also supported by a number of the Opposition Party in the Dáil, and the Government decided that the Bill should be amended so as to meet the plea, and to provide that those who had 1916 service only should be granted pensions and also that Volunteers who served during the Black-and-Tan war, whose service was continuous for the period April to July, '21, should be also granted pensions. Accordingly, an amendment was drafted and has been circulated in the name of Senator Seamus Robinson to make provision for persons in those two classes.

For a number of years the policy of Fianna Fáil was to abolish the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924. Some time ago, however, representations were made to the Government pointing out that it would be unfair to withdraw the 1924 pensions. Many arguments were put forward, which the Executive Council felt were just, and after careful consideration they decided that as all the other contracts made by the previous Government with the various sections of the community were being kept, the pensions awarded under the 1924 Act should be continued and at the same time immediate steps should be taken to secure that those who fought with the I.R.A. in the civil war should in future be given equal treatment.

The terms and conditions both as regard the grant and the amount of pensions under this Bill to the members of the I.R.A. are the same as those provided for under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924. To qualify for a pension an applicant must show that he had military service subsequent to the 1st July, 1922, as well as service in Easter Week or throughout either of the periods 1st April, 1920, to the 31st March, 1921, or from the 1st April, 1921, to 11th July, 1921. Applicants who secure a service certificate will be awarded a pension on the basis of their rank on the 11th July, 1921, or on the 1st July, 1922, whichever is the higher.

The two new classes being brought in, in view of the amendment that has been circulated, will be granted pensions according to the rank they held on the first day of their service during Easter Week or the last day of their service during the Black and Tan war, whichever is the higher.

A difficulty arises in grading the ranks in the I.R.A. so as to make them comparable with the ranks of the standing army. The I.R.A. was organised on a territorial basis, each parish or village had its company of Volunteers and each district its battalion. These units were called companies or battalions in many parts of the country even though there were not sufficient men in a company to make a section or a half-section in a standing army. In the case of my old division there were a few companies which had only from 12 to 20 men each, while in other companies there were as many as 150 men. In order to arrive at a grading which will make the ranks of the various units of the I.R.A. comparable one with another and with those of a standing army, it has been found necessary to incorporate the rules for the grading of ranks which will be found in the First Schedule to the Bill. These rules ensure that a company officer will not be graded as captain unless there were 60 men or more in his company and that a battalion O/C will not be graded as commandant unless there were 300 men or more in his battalion.

It will be noted that the ranks are designated A, B, C, D, and E. Rank A corresponds to a rank higher than that of Major-General in the 1924 Act; Rank B, to Colonel or Major-General; Rank C, to Commandant or Major; Rank D, to Lieutenant or Captain; Rank E, to Private or Non-commissioned Officer. The rate of pension corresponds to the equivalent ranks under the 1924 Act.

The duties performed under the 1924 Act by the Board of Assessors in the finding of rank and service will be performed under this Bill by a referee, who will be assisted by a committee of four persons as set out in Clause 6 of the Bill and provision is made that the referee will have power to compel attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. The provision in the Military Service Pensions Act, 1925, as to the power of the Executive Council to revoke a military service pension granted under the 1924 Act has been incorporated in the Bill as regards pensions to be granted under the Bill (Clause 12).

Clause 13, following a similar provision in the 1924 Act (Section 3 (6)), enables the Minister, both as regards pensions under the 1924 Act and under this Bill, to request the referee to review a report on which the certificate and pension were based on the ground that evidence not available prior to the making of such report has since become available, and in accordance with the report of the referee to withdraw or reduce any such pension that may be granted. It may be taken that such request to the referee to review cases of pensions already granted will not be made unless there is fairly strong evidence that there was fraud or misrepresentation. It is estimated that as the number of men who become entitled to pensions under this Bill is roughly twice the number who have already been awarded pensions under the 1924 Act, the annual cost of the Bill will amount to £360,000. The two additional clauses which are being brought in in the amendment circulated will add roughly another £40,000. It is impossible to give a close estimate of the probable cost, but I believe that £400,000 is an outside figure, and that the annual cost will be well under that amount and cover all the classes provided for.

I should like to support this Bill, but if I do it is because we have been notified about an amendment, which, of course, it is not in order to discuss on Second Reading. The position is that the previous Administration gave pensions to men who had pre-Truce service and who fought in the National Army to uphold the State. This Administration comes along and brings in a Bill to give pensions to people who had pre-Truce service but who fought to disrupt the State. I do not object to that. The people of this country have elected this Government and I presume that the people who sent the Government here agree with them. It is none of my business then to object. But what I cannot understand is this: we have people who took the right and people who took the left and when this Bill is passed they all will have pensions. But the sensible men who fought in the Insurrection of 1916, who fought in the Black-and-Tan war, the men who had the sense when the civil war came along to stand aside and say: "We will take neither side" were being left out until the Government were forced to include them in this Bill.

Having gone so far, I appeal to the Minister to do the thing decently. I will not ask him to do it generously, but to do it decently and justly. The great omission I see in this Bill, even taking into account the amendment which it is proposed to insert, is that in this age of chivalry, this age of the equality of the sexes, the Cumann-na-mBan are not included. The Cumann-na-mBan fought in Easter Week just as well as the Volunteers, the Hibernian Rifles, the Fianna Eireann, and the Citizen Army. They fought as well and they are as well entitled to pensions. I shall probably bring in an amendment to include them. I suppose I shall have to put in definitions. I shall have to delete the word "male" in Section 3. With the equality of the sexes at the present day, I think it is a terrible thing to put in "male person" instead of "person."

There is another very small section that I should like the Minister to bear in mind. This is an Act to amend and extend the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1930. Under the 1924 Act, and probably under some of the other Acts, there were certain dates fixed by which applications should be put in. I have not any particular case in mind, but I know that at that time some people were in Canada and some in the United States and their applications were not in in time and they did not get the pensions. They were entitled to them and the Act of 1924 applied to them. I shall have to ask Senator Comyn to help me out in this, as I am not a legal man, but I think these people would be entitled to apply under this Bill. Of course, it will exclude their Army service because they did not apply under the 1924 Act.

Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (b) says that the Act applies to every male person who served in the forces and gives certain dates, etc. Paragraph (c), however, says:

Who is not a person to whom the Act of 1924 applies.

"Applies" is the word I do not like. I am quite satisfied that what the Government have in mind is people who are benefiting under the 1924 Act, but I think that when the Act was passed it applied to everybody who was eligible to apply for a pension. It certainly would apply to them up to a certain date, and the question arises whether it applied to them afterwards, they not having applied for a pension. I do not like the word "applies" there and I should like Senator Comyn's help. I imagine that the referee would have to rule out all the men whom the 1924 Act applied to, whether actually getting pensions or not and that would be unfair. I should like to see an amendment inserted to cover these few men, as I understand they are a very small number, who were eligible under the 1924 Act and that they should be allowed to apply under this Act. All I want is to be fair and just to everybody. I shall probably put in an amendment to have them included.

Probably it will save time on the Committee Stage to raise two points touching the amendments of which I have given notice. I am not dealing with the general principle of the Bill, but for the purpose of facilitating later procedure it might be advisable that I should touch upon these two points. Under Section 8 it is provided that the Minister shall refer applications to the referee. A referee is to be appointed under this Bill with two advisers in place of the Board of Assessors under the old Bill. Every application shall be referred to the referee, who shall report as to whether the applicant is or is not a person to whom the Act applies and, if the applicant is a person to whom the Act applies, then the referee shall report on the service periods, the grade of rank and on such other matters as may be prescribed. The prescription is to be by the Minister. I do not quite understand what might be involved in that. It seems to me to leave it open for the Minister to make regulations prescribing what the referee shall report upon, which conceivably might defeat the intentions of the legislature and then the referee's report will be a private document with everything more or less secluded from public observation. This prescription seems to me to be a dangerous provision.

In sub-section (5) of the same section it sets out that where a report has been made by the referee under this section on an application for a service certificate, the Minister may, on the ground that evidence not available prior to the making of the report has since become available, request the referee to review such report. That is more or less a repetition of what was in earlier legislation. I will draw attention to the fact that the Minister will not know what evidence was available to the referee because, according to earlier decisions by the old Board of Assessors and, presumably, those decisions having been supported by the Minister, the documents are in the possession of the board and are not available even for the Minister. The Minister will not know what evidence was before the referee and therefore will not know what was available and what new evidence has come forward. There is no real review possible. That raises the question involved in the second amendment I put forward. I do not intend to argue that case now, because it would delay the House perhaps too long and it would be better not to prejudice the later discussion. The points I have raised will at least give the Minister an idea of what the amendments I have put down are driving at and will enable him to be prepared to meet the arguments.

It is only right that some voice should be raised in defence of the unfortunate taxpayers. They are being called upon to bear many heavy burdens in the carrying out of this Government's policy. We have already dealt with a Bill which will mean a burden of £600,000 and to-day we had another measure which will cost at least £100,000. This Bill now proposes additional heavy expenditure on the people of the State. I do not object to any servant of the State who, in defence of the State, risked his life when he joined the forces to protect the State, being compensated in some way. What I do object to is paying pensions to a certain number of men, many of them misled by their leaders, who went out in open rebellion against the vast majority of the people. They have already cost the taxpayers of this State the awful sum of £36,000,000. I do not believe even that will be sufficient to pay for the damage done. I think it is a terrible thing, and it certainly is not the practice of civilised countries, to pension men who fought against their own country like the men who went into rebellion during the civil war. I wish to register an objection to this proposal on behalf of the unfortunate people who have to pay.

I thought when Senator Miss Browne began her speech that she was going to be perfectly reasonable. I wish she had concluded her speech after the first or second sentence. If she had done so, her speech would have been perfect. I think that the State never suffers by doing what is just. I think it was just to reward the men who fought for the liberty of their country in the many generations that have passed. Many men have risen to defend their country in the past and they failed to achieve that object. In our time something has been achieved. It is just and right that the men who went out and gave their time, their health and their energies for their country should get a reasonable reward.

That is what I have said.

That is what you said and I, for one, thoroughly agree with Senator Miss Browne. I also agree with Senator Staines as regards the amendment which the Minister has indicated and which will allow some reward to the men who defended the liberty of their country between 1916 and 1921. It is only right that they should get a reward for their services, whether they took part in the civil war or not. That is the intention of this Government. The last Government gave pensions to the men who fought for their country and who, as some people will say, then fought against their country. This Government, in its original measure, proposed to give pensions to the men who fought for their country and who continued to fight for their country to the end—that is what we say.

I am sure everybody will agree with the amendment indicated by the Minister and I am very glad to see that it has met with general approval in the country. It provides that the men who fought for their country and who refused to fight against their country later are to get a pension for the work they did. This amendment has not been introduced as a result of pressure from Senator Staines or anybody else. I believe that it was introduced because it has been borne in upon the Minister's mind that it is a fair thing to do.

Senator Staines has appealed to me to construe a portion of Section 3, which sets out:—

This Act applies to every male person—(c) who is not a person to whom the Act of 1924 applies.

Now, I would not like to refuse any request made to me by Senator Staines, but because I happen to be a barrister I do not think it is fair to call upon me to construe Acts of Parliament before they are passed. At the same time, I should say at a hazard that the meaning of it is that any person who could get a pension under the 1924 Act will not get a pension under this Act. That is the meaning of it. Of course the Senator sitting beside Senator Staines—Senator Duggan—is better able to express an opinion on that question than I am. Senator Staines referred to other amendments. I would call attention to the fact that this is a measure, the passing of which will involve the payment of money, and I rather think that a Financial Resolution would be necessary to cover any amendment, the adoption of which resulted in an increase of the financial burdens. I feel very happy that this measure of justice has been received with approval.

Does this Bill take in men of whom there are a considerable number who did not take up arms until 1922? Does it include men of military age before 1922 but who did not take up arms before that date? It was to those that my previous remarks had reference.

I would appeal to Miss Browne not to introduce any note of discord.

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister which I hope he will consider I think this State, be it good or bad, is largely due to the efforts of the men of 1916. I think everybody will be impressed with the resolution and bravery of these men who took up arms at that time against the might of the British Empire. These men had not in mind any idea of reward or of pensions. They were a comparatively small body. I think they should be specially honoured if it was only by some token presented them by the State. In the case of men who were executed, or who have since passed away this token of honour should be presented to their families. Some distinguishing mark should be given in recognition of their services. We must remember that they were a small force within this country at that time, and I venture to say that at one period, if some of the people in this country could lay hands upon them their punishment would be much more severe at the hands of the natives than at those of the foreigners. In allocating pensions some discrimination should be made in respect of these men. Some token of honour that future generations and the descendants of those men would cherish should be made to them and their families. They certainly played an outstanding part in modern Irish history. I think the point of bringing in men who fought the Tans and refused to fight their own people, is a wise and a proper one. I am glad to know that the Government are about to accept such an amendment. I am sure the suggestion I make would meet with the whole-hearted approval of the best people in this country, that is to specially honour the men who took up arms in 1916. With regard to pensions in the case of such men, I think there ought to be a flat rate without any discrimination as to officers and men, and that the recognition and reward which it is proposed to give should be the same in both cases.

Most of the points raised in this discussion are points that can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. The historically inaccurate statement made by Senator Staines can also be dealt with at a later stage. Senator Foran raised an interesting point in his speech, that is the issue of plaques or medals to those who took part in the 1916 war. That matter is under consideration. One of the big difficulties was to have certificates on which medals or plaques could be issued. This Bill will provide a certified list of all who took part in all the different wars. Then if it is decided to issue plaques or medals to those people the necessary provision can be made. Certainly, a list upon which medals would be issued will be available.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th August.
Top
Share