Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Sep 1934

Vol. 19 No. 7

Military Service Pensions Bill, 1934—Report.

The following Government amendments were agreed to.

1. Section 1. After the figures "1922" in line 29 to insert the words and figures "the 1st day of July, 1922."

2. Section 1. After the word "July" in line 31 to insert the figures "1922".

Mr. Staines

I move amendment No. 3:—

Section 3. To delete in line 26 the words and figures "to whom the Act of 1924 applies" and to substitute therefor the words and figures "in receipt of a military service pension under the Acts of 1924 to 1930."

I think my amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, and the Minister's amendment, No. 5, deal with the same point. They all deal with the question of persons who under the 1924 Act were entitled to pensions, but did not get them because they did not apply in time. Some of these people were scattered in different parts of the world. Some were in Canada; some were in Australia; some were sailing the seas of the world. My amendment No. 3 would allow these people to get the benefits of this Bill if this alteration were made. The later amendment, No. 4, in my name, would bring them in under the 1924 Act and give them the full benefit of that Act. Amendment No. 5, which is the Government amendment, would, if the Minister accepted my amendment to that amendment, cover the points I raised. There was an amendment circulated to-day by the Minister which goes a good way to meet my points. I have not taken any legal advice but I think if the time is extended as proposed in that new amendment, I could accept it in substitution for my present amendment. I want the people who were late in applying under the 1924 Act to be covered, and I think the Government ought to go the full way in meeting that.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

I have sympathy with the men who are entitled to pensions under the 1924 Act and could not apply because they were abroad in other countries or serving on boats or something like that. Where that happened I have power without amendment of the regulations, to consider such cases and have them examined. I have here the regulation made on the 3rd February, 1927, and it says:

"Every application to the Minister for a certificate of military service under this Act must be made not later than the 31st December, 1925, provided the Minister for Defence may accept an application after that date from persons who tender reasons satisfactory to him for their failure to apply before the date fixed."

I would consider a person who had been away in Canada or who had been away serving on a boat as giving a satisfactory reason for failure to apply. I intend to operate this regulation in any application brought to my notice, where a satisfactory case is made. It is impossible to include all cases under the 1924 Act, but if a satisfactory case is brought forward I shall refer it to the Board of Assessors. With that in view I have circulated a further amendment. It reads:

New section. Before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—

16.—Where a certificate of military service is granted to any person after the date of the passing of this Act and a pension under the Act of 1924 is granted to such person, such pension shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1924, commence as from the 1st day of October, 1934, or the day of his discharge from the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann, whichever of those dates shall be the later."

The House will notice the date 1st October, 1934. As the 1924 Act stands, if a person came forward and had a satisfactory reason for not applying, if a certificate were granted his pension would date from the 1st October, 1924. I think it would be unreasonable to ask that. Therefore, with a view to considering the number of applications that will come forward, I am asking the Seanad to say that it is a reasonable thing to date the pension as from the 1st October, 1934, instead of the 1st October, 1924, in such cases.

Mr. Staines

I agree, I have very little sympathy with those men who were late in applying, but, on the other hand, if the Minister meets such cases in a reasonable way and pays the pension as from the 1st October, 1934, I think they will have no grievance. If the Minister's new amendment is accepted, I think I would ask leave to withdraw my amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and my amendment to amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mr. Comyn

I move the new amendment circulated by the Minister.

Mr. D.L. Robinson

I second.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 5.

Mr. D.L. Robinson

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) The Act of 1924 shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to apply to a person to whom that Act in fact applies but in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied either that because of such person having served in the Forces he did not apply for a certificate of military service under the said Act or that such person was refused such certificate because of his having been sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude in respect of an act done by him in the execution of his duty as a member of the Forces.

Mr. Aiken

This is a drafting amendment to ensure that if a person were refused a certificate of military service under the 1924 Act for the reason of having been sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude in respect of an act done in the execution of his duty as member of a force, such refusal should not debar him from applying under the present Bill when it becomes law.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. Staines

I move amendment No. 6:—

Section 4, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the following:—

Provided that the grade of rank to be allotted to persons who claim and prove military service in Easter Week, 1916, and had no service after the 11th day of July, 1921, shall be, in the cases of such persons for whom Rank C, Rank D, or Rank E would be the appropriate rank, two ranks higher than the rank ascertainable under sub-section (1) of this section, and in the case of persons for whom Rank B would be the appropriate rank, one rank higher; provided also that the grade of rank to be allotted to persons who claim and prove military service for the period from but not including Easter Week, 1916, to the 11th day of July, 1921, and had no other service shall, in cases of ranks lower than Rank A, be one rank higher than is ascertainable under sub-section (1) of this section.

I think there is general agreement amongst all parties that the men who took part in Easter Week and the Black and Tan war should be well looked after. Senator Foran, on the Second Reading, said—I have the debates here, but it is not necessary to read out exactly what he said—that he would like to see the same pensions granted to privates as to officers, and I think there is a great deal to be said for that point of view. The privates who went out in Easter Week offered their lives for Ireland just as well as the officers did, and my amendment is a levelling up amendment, if you like. It is going half-way to meet the point Senator Foran made on the Second Reading. I think it is just and fair, and I hope that the Labour Party in the Seanad, and particularly the Labour Party in the Dáil will support that point of view.

I am only asking for one rank for the men who took part in the Black and Tan war. They certainly deserve everything that can be done for them also. We all remember the street shootings, and all the other kinds of warfare that were carried on, and we remember how brave those men were. I do not want to be shouting about it, but I think everyone will agree that only for the Easter Week men and for the men who fought the Black and Tan war we would not be sitting here to-day. There would be no Irish Free State. So far as the men who took sides in the civil war are concerned, under the 1924 Act the people who joined the Defence Forces have been looked after and have been drawing their pensions for a long time. The people who fought against the State at that time will be getting a pension under this Act, and certainly, unless there was a change to a Republic or some other form of Government, I am sure that they never expected any pension. They are getting it now, however, and I do not begrudge it to them, but I think that the sensible men who took no part in the civil war should get some extra recognition. When it comes to the writing of history, I think that the people who took part in the civil war will be forgotten when the people who took part in Easter Week and in the Black and Tan war will be remembered by the people of this country. I think that the very least the people might do would be to treat them generously.

It is true that a number of men who took part in 1916 have died since in the Dublin Union. I do not know whether they have the usual six feet by two feet which everybody claims as their right, or whether they are in a pauper's grave, but I think that the fact that these men died in the Dublin Union is a disgrace to this country. I know of another man who is in a hospital at the present moment. His name is on a monument over at Mount Street Bridge. His name is actually on the monument built by a grateful people. He has been in hospital for many months, and a few months ago a subscription had to be made up to prevent his wife and children from being evicted. I ask the Minister and the Government to accept this amendment.

Mr. Aiken

Senator Staines has made a case that would be all right if it were not proposed already to treat the Easter Week men in a particularly generous way. Under the 1924 Act, if a man had service in Easter Week he got four years' service for pensionable purposes for the service he rendered in Easter Week. Under this Bill, as amended, it is proposed to give anybody who took part in Easter Week four years' pension for that week of service. I think that is particularly generous. In regard to the Black and Tan war also, for some of the half calendar years you have a year of service given. For the calendar year from the 1st April, 1920, to the 31st March, 1921, you have two years of service awarded; and for the last four months of the Black and Tan war, one year's service is awarded. I think that the pensionable service awarded, in view of the length a man served, is particularly generous and that there is no reason at all for this stepping-up in rank in addition to what has been done already.

Cathaoirleach

Do you press your amendment, Senator?

Mr. Staines

I am afraid that I shall have to press it. I do not like doing so, but I think that there is a good case for these men. The men who were privates in Easter Week and the Black and Tan war did as much work as the officers and, as I said before, I think they are entitled to special treatment and that it is the least that might be done.

Mr. Séamus Robinson

I am very sorry to see Senator Staines pressing this amendment, particularly as his attitude has been exceedingly helpful through all the stages of the Bill. After all, if he insists on special extra treatment being given to the men of Easter Week beyond what is being given already in the Bill, I can visualise the people who took part in the Four Courts fight, where they went through a terrible time and who are getting nothing at all, sitting up and asking for special treatment also. I think that the granting of four years' service for seven days is quite a consideration, and if they served for another year after, it is five years' service. After all the Minister has been very anxious to meet Senator Staines's point of view and I think there is no use in pressing him too far. I think that Senator Staines ought to withdraw his amendment in keeping with the rest of his attitude which has been most helpful.

Mr. Crosbie

Might I ask the Minister what is actually the difference in money, roughly, between the two arrangements?

Mr. Aiken

The difference is that a private in Easter Week, under these Acts, gets £5 per year for each year of service awarded. That amounts to £20 for Easter Week. If Senator Staines's amendment were carried, a private would get £60.

Cathaoirleach

I am putting the amendment, Senator.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 7:—

Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete in line 51 the words "or a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing".

This amendment refers to the section dealing with the appointment of a referee. I ask the House to have in mind the supremely important position that this referee will occupy and the great power he will have. I referred to it on a previous occasion. To him every application that is made must be referred. He will examine the evidence in reference to the application and will make a report. If he reports that the applicant is a person qualified for a certificate the Minister must give that certificate, and if the certificate is issued the Minister for Finance must find the money for his pension, provided that the Dáil votes it. That pension, on the average, will continue, roughly, for 30 years. I pointed out before that it probably means a lump sum of from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 if one takes into account the figure of £400,000 for 30 years. I raised some questions on the accounting of this sum before but I was not supported. In the course of the discussion I was referred to the fact that the courts did this sort of thing regularly.

I am asking in this amendment to ensure that the status of the referee will be of such a kind as to make him at least equal to that of a judge: that he cannot be removed except by a vote of the Houses. Therefore I am asking that the phrase "or practising barrister of at least ten years' standing" should be deleted from this Bill. I recognise that is the form of the previous Act. The only difference as between this Bill and that Act is that there is now a Supreme Court judgment which removes from the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Defence any option in regard to the payment of a pension. But in the position that the referee is to be placed, I think he ought to be a person who is not removable by the Minister or the Executive Council, and that he should at least have the status of a judge.

I recognise that the duties of this referee will take all his time for a year or two, and that if the amendment were passed it would probably mean that one of the existing judges would have to be transferred from his duties in the courts to this office. I take it that would not present a tremendous difficulty, as more judges will have to be appointed. The important thing that I am asking the House to agree to is, that the referee, having these tremendous powers, the supreme authority in respect to the payment of these moneys, the granting of these certificates and the awarding of these pensions, from whose judgment there will be no appeal, ought not to be "a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing" who, when his job is finished, will be looking for practice or promotion in the future, but that he ought to be an independent officer of the law. That is the whole purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Aiken

Senator Johnson has overlooked one point and it is this: we have no guarantee that a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court or a justice of the District Court is going to accept an appointment made by the Executive Council. The person that I would like to see accept the appointment is one of the existing judges, and that he should carry out the duties as long as he was able to do so. But, according to another amendment of Senator Johnson's, if for any reason the judge who was acting as referee got sick, then we would have to appoint another judge in his place. As I understand it, the Executive Council, when appointing judges, have to appoint a barrister of at least ten years' standing. According to the provisions of this Bill the referee must either be an existing judge or a man with such a practice at the Bar that he would be eligible for appointment to the position of judge if there was a vacancy. I think it is only reasonable that the Executive Council, in looking around for a suitable person to appoint as referee, should be left with a discretion to appoint either a judge or a lawyer of such standing that he would be eligible to be made a judge if there was a vacancy.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 8:—

Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete all after the word "referee" in line 52 down to the end of the sub-section.

This amendment really has reference to the same idea. I do not want a referee, having all these powers, to be a person who can be removed at will by the Executive Council. It is in line with the argument that the referee should be of the status of a judge. I agree that there may be some difficulty in the administration of this so long as the referee may be a mere practising barrister without the status of a judge. I suppose, therefore, that I should withdraw the amendment in the circumstances as being impracticable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 10:—

Section 9. To delete all after the word "final" in line 60 down to the end of the section.

I want to have the law relating to these pensions similar to the law relating to the pensions of other classes of public servants. The Superannuation Acts of 1859, 1887, 1909, and of 1923, which is a Free State Act, all declare that the decisions of the Treasury or, in our case, of the Department of Finance, shall be final in respect to the superannuation of civil servants, the Metropolitan Police, the Royal Irish Constabulary, etc. And in respect of a number of other Acts dealing with the same class of payment it is provided that the decision of the Treasury or the decision of the Minister for Finance shall be final. That, I think, should be enough without double-locking and barring the possibility that the courts might have to be appealed to, or that the Comptroller and Auditor-General might want to report to the Dáil on some matters concerned with the payment of these accounts. If the law is that the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall have no power to examine these accounts, then the deletion of these words will make no difference. If also the provisions of the Constitution regarding the position of the courts— the High Court and so on—would cover this kind of case, notwithstanding the reference to "conclusive and binding on all persons and tribunals whatsoever," and if the entry of this phrase has no legal effect against the Constitution, it is better to delete it. I am trying to do what I have tried to do for five or six years —to make it possible for the Dáil to know what is happening in regard to the allocation of pensions, and it is for that purpose that I ask the House to agree to the amendment.

Mr. Aiken

There is no intention of preventing the Comptroller and Auditor-General from examining the accounts. It is however, intended, as it was under the amendment of the 1924 Act which was introduced and passed, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should not be set up as a trial judge to re-try all the cases that will go before the referee and the board of assessors. In the case of superannuation of an ordinary civil servant, the years of service are down in black and white. It is well known from the written records how long that civil servant served, and it is only on the word of some other civil servant who has examined the records that the Auditor-General has to go. I take it that he accepts the certificate of his years of service and then, in examining the accounts, simply finds out whether the retired civil servant is getting more than the pension due to him by reason of his number of certified years of service.

In the case of this Bill and the 1924 Act, the finding of service is a much more difficult thing. The referee, in order to satisfy himself that a man had active service during any of the periods mentioned, will have to examine a number of witnesses and there are practically no written records. Because the thing is so difficult, we decided in this Bill to have a judge or barrister of ten years' standing as referee and with him a number of men who will hear the evidence, act as a board of assessors and advise him what to do. I think it would be absolutely impossible for the Comptroller and Auditor-General, coming along afterwards, to review in detail the work done by the referee and this board. If he did, I think it would be done in a most unsatisfactory way and if we did put that duty on him, he would have to get a staff and it would take them as many years to review the cases as it took the referee and his board originally to go through them. It is quite correct that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should see the report upon which the Minister bases the certificate but I do not think he should go any further and set himself up as an appeal court.

Mr. Johnson

There is no suggestion in this amendment or in my argument about making the Auditor-General an appeal court against the referee. I want to put the Auditor-General in the same position in this matter as he is in respect to superannuation to, let us say, policemen—R.I.C. men and others. The Minister said that he takes the certificate of service in respect of a civil servant. Yes, he does, but he is not precluded from inquiring whether that certificate has been granted properly. That officer is appointed by the Dáil according to the Constitution to examine the accounts for which the Ministers are responsible. The Minister appears to take the view that his accounts have only to be examined from the point of issue from the particular officer of the Ministry. That is not the position at all and there is no suggestion of the Auditor-General examining into every case, or even the great majority of cases. He is to be allowed to do in this as he is allowed to do, and does, in respect of old age pensions.

That is the whole of my argument. He may not require one additional officer but I think it is very bad policy definitely and deliberately to exclude him from his duties by this kind of legislation. I frankly acknowledge that the fact that the referee is to be an individual in the capacity of a judge, or one who may be a judge, is better than having a chairman assisted by two others who can override him. I think it is far better to have a responsible judge or a quasi judge than to have a board, two members of which may be members of the Government whose accounts are being audited. But with all that, I think it is still a bad principle to have introduced time after time legislation deliberately depriving the Auditor-General of the rights which constitutional law and practice have given him.

Mr. Aiken

The only answer I would make to Senator Johnson's argument is that the certificate of a judge, when he gives his decision for the payment of a sum against the Government, has to be met and the Comptroller and Auditor-General cannot go back and re-try the case. He has to accept the certificate of the judge, and all that he is asked to do now is to treat the report of the referee in the same manner.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 11:—

Section 10, sub-section (2). After the word "appears" in line 3 to insert the words "to the Minister".

It is quite clear that I am fighting a lone hand in this. I realise that this amendment has no value even if carried, but I put it down because it is the only way, according to the Rules, in which I could draw attention to the section and the Minister's interpretation of the powers he has, as revealed on the last stage. The Minister appears to think that the words which open sub-section (2) of this section, "where it appears from a report," make a difference to the Minister's discretion. He said the words were: "If it appeared to the Minister that the report relates to a person to whom the Act applies, the Minister shall grant to such person a service certificate." I wonder whether the Minister really thinks that he has discretion under that sub-section?

Mr. Aiken

I do not know. If I said so I made a mistake.

Mr. Johnson

That is all right. I realise now that the Minister made a mistake then and he is backing this Bill with a clear understanding that once an applicant has put in an application the application must go at first to the referee, and once the referee has decided that the applicant is a person to whom the Act applies, then the pension inevitably follows and there is no discretion left anywhere.

Mr. Aiken

The certificate inevitably follows.

Mr. Johnson

And the pension inevitably follows the certificate.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Cathaoirleach

Government Amendment No. 12:—

First Schedule. To add at the end of Rule 1, page 11, a new paragraph as follows:—

(7) None of the foregoing provisions of this Rule shall apply to any person who at any date was a member of Fianna Eireann or of Cumann na mBan and was not at any date a member of Oglaigh na hEireann (Irish Republican Army) or of the Irish Volunteers, and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall have effect in relation to any such person, that is to say:—

(a) any person who at any date—

(i) was a member of the headquarters staff or executive of Fianna Eireann or Cumann na mBan, or

(ii) was an officer of Fianna Eireann or Cumann na mBan commanding 100 members or more of either of those bodies, or

(iii) was an officer of Fianna Eireann or Cumann na mBan senior to an officer of either of those bodies commanding 100 members or more of either of those bodies.

shall be deemed to have held at that date Rank D, and

(b) any person who at any date was a member of Fianna Eireann or Cumann na mBan and who is not deemed by virtue of the foregoing sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph to have held Rank D shall be deemed to have held at that date Rank E.

Mr. Aiken

I indicated on Committee Stage that I would introduce this amendment, Amendment No. 12, on the Report Stage in order that members of Fianna Eireann or Cumann na mBan would not be graded up above the rank, that I think everybody will agree, they were entitled to.

Colonel Moore

I think it is very desirable that such an amendment should be put in. My belief is that everybody who fought in 1916, and between that and 1921, should be under the care of the State, certainly to an extent sufficient to keep them from distress. But there are other people who did just as much as the Cumann na mBan. I am not depreciating the Cumann na mBan in any way, but there are plenty of women all over the country who did just as good work as they did. They left their homes, carried arms across the country, went through all sorts of different hardships, looked after the wounded, and supplied them with food. These women were not organised as the Cumann na mBan were. They did just as much as the men did. An army has the first and second and the third lines, and the second line is as important sometimes as the first. These women were in the second line. They did not carry firearms, but they did as much as could have been done, and I feel quite confident that if they had not turned up, and that if they had not spent their time and their lives in hardship, the people would not have succeeded. I believe in the final result the battle was won by the way in which they supported the men.

Cathaoirleach

You have no amendment down to that effect, Senator.

Colonel Moore

I have an amendment, but I could not put it down as I have not seen the section. My amendment would read "such women who did effective military service, such as carrying orders." I suggest that that might be inserted as an amendment. It may be said that we cannot go on giving pensions and money to everybody, but I think there will be many people getting pensions who did not deserve them as much as those people. I think that people who fought in the country's liberation ought to receive pensions. I have no desire to give pensions to people who did not.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid, Senator, I cannot accept an amendment handed in now.

Colonel Moore

I was unable to hand in the amendment before because we had not the particular section before us.

Cathaoirleach

That is so, but I am afraid you cannot do it now. I am bound by the Standing Orders.

Colonel Moore

At all events, I would ask the Minister to consider what can be done in that matter.

Amendment No. 12 put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

There is a further amendment which was circulated only to-day. The amendment is proposed as an alternative to Senator Staines' amendment to amendment No. 5 on the Order Paper.

Question: "That the House agree to take the amendment"—put and agreed to.

Mr. Aiken

The amendment reads:—

Before Section 16 to insert a new section.

16. Where a certificate of military service is granted to any person after the date of the passing of this Act and a pension under the Act of 1924 is granted to such person, such pension shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1924, commence as from the 1st day of October, 1934 on the day of his discharge from the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann, whichever of those dates shall be the later.

Amendment agreed to.

Question: "That the Military Service Pensions Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Sir John Keane

On this stage of the Bill I want to ask the Minister a question. Can the Minister tell us whether everybody who is likely to want pensions are to get them? Or whether there is any likelihood of any further category going for pensions? Are we clear that the Bill that we are now passing will cover all these pensions?

Mr. O'Neill

No, no.

Sir John Keane

Will the Minister say what is left out? Will he tell us what categories are still expected? Also would the Minister tell us in very general terms the figures of the total liabilities on the State for these pensions?

Mr. Quirke

I would suggest to the Minister that he should look out for such suggestions as Senator Sir John Keane has put forward. It is obvious that the Senator has in mind a Bill which provides pensions for ex-Senators.

Mr. Staines

I would suggest to Senator Sir John Keane that there should be a Pensions Bill brought in in 18 years' time for the soldiers of the economic war. The men who fought in 1916 have been waiting for their pensions for 18 years. Before we finish up with this Bill, there is another class to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister, and it is this: I think the Bill has been so well received by all Parties that we ought to start now with a clean slate. The number of men who received pensions under the 1924 Act and to whom I am referring is small. For one reason or another a number of the pensions then given have been cancelled. I have in mind one particular case. If we assume that the man in question would live for 20 years—which is a natural assumption considering his age—this man, for a very minor offence, an offence for which he would get one month in Mountjoy, has been fined £1,400. We do not want to condone his offence in any way. He was guilty all right of this offence for which he would have got a month in Mountjoy in the ordinary way. But, as I said, he has been fined £1,400 by the cancellation of his pension. That is one case. The Minister has all these records in his office. I would ask him now to restore the pensions in all these cases where the pensions were cancelled. That would help in many ways. We want this slate wiped clean. I want, as far as I can, to have the slate wiped clean, and I hope that the Minister, who knows the few cases to which I have referred, will endeavour to do that.

Mr. Séamus Robinson

I agree with Senator Staines that it would be desirable if the whole slate were wiped clean. The Minister has stated here that he does not want redundancy of legislation and that he can give effect to the Senator's wishes under his present powers. With regard to the statement of Senator Sir John Keane, I think he need not be afraid of the Minister or the Government taking the bit in their mouth and running headlong into granting all sorts of pensions. Even those who are friends of the Minister know how difficult it is to get him to move where there is the slightest expenditure involved.

Before the Bill leaves this House, I should like to say a word or two in appreciation of the attitude of the Opposition as a whole to this Bill. In fact every shade of political opinion in the Opposition including the dark brown shade, shot with blue, was favourably disposed to the Bill. Senator Miss Browne sounded a note which was, perhaps, a little bit discordant, but that was entirely because she was under the misapprehension that those who took part on the side of the Republic in the civil war only, and who had no previous service, were getting pensions under the Bill. I am sure she has found out since that that is not so.

I would ask her, however, not to expect me to agree with her that these men do not deserve recognition or help, because I think they do. Under this Bill it might not be very easy to give it because those who served in the civil war only, on the National Army side, did not get any pensions under the 1924 Act. On that parallel, it may be said that those who took part in the civil war on the Republican side should not get pensions. It should be remembered, however, that the men who took part in the civil war on the Republican side did so without receiving any pay such as the National Army received. They got no gratuity when it was over, and had no opportunity of finding work such as was provided for those who left the National Army. There is, therefore, a good case to be made for suitable recognition for those men who had civil war service only. This fact should also be remembered: During the Tan war, the War of Independence, no officer was anxious to bring in new men to the Army. He had sufficient men to carry on, having regard to the arms at his disposal. It was our policy deliberately not to allow young men to join up wholesale. Many of the men who did join up afterwards would have done so earlier had they been allowed, so that Senator Miss Browne and other members need not think that we, Republicans, are getting all our own way under this Bill. I would like to say, in conclusion, that I hope that the spirit shown in regard to this Bill by the Opposition and amongst members generally in this House will help us to forget the hatchet that we all believe has been buried for some time.

Question put.

Sir John Keane

Does the Minister not desire to answer my question?

Mr. Aiken

The estimate of the cost of this Bill is £400,000. I announced that before. With regard to the other question, I am not a prophet.

Question declared carried.