Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 1943

Vol. 27 No. 20

Army Pensions Bill, 1943— (Certified Money Bill) —Second Stage.

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

The Army Pensions Bill, 1943, seeks to remedy certain defects in that complex code of Acts known as the Army Pensions Acts, 1923-1941, and in one or two respects to extend the existing provisions of that code.

The first defect in the existing legislation is that no provision is made for disablement due to disease attributable to service if the disease was contracted after 30th September, 1924. Disablement due to wound or injury received at any time is covered by the Acts, but disablement due to discase, no matter how grave the disease, and no matter how great the disablement, is not covered, if it was contracted after the 30th September, 1924. That omission or, perhaps, exclusion in the Acts has frequently been the subject of some adverse comment, but the official view was that, under the sheltered conditions of peace-time soldiering, any ordinary disease, though contracted in Army service, could scarcely be deemed to have arisen out of that service, and would, probably, have arisen if the man had never entered the Army, But the sheltered conditions of peace cannot be considered to exist in the Army since it was expanded at the beginning of the emergency period, because both officers and men are frequently exposed, especially during manæuvres and field exercises, to conditions little short of those that would obtain under active service, and, accordingly, the official view regarding the incidence of disease is no longer valid. Hence, in this Bill it is proposed to make pensionable disablement due to disease attributable to service during the period of the emergency.

In making this provision, we are giving the Army the benefits of the latest legislation on the subject. The Act of 1927, obviously designed to deal with peace conditions, provided that, for disablement due to disease to be pensionable, it had not only to be contracted before 30th September, 1924, but it had also to reach at least a degree of 80 per cent, at the date of the applicant's examination by the Army Pensions Board. The Act of 1937, however, reduced the degree of disablement for pensions purposes from 80 per cent. to 50 per cent., and we are giving the men disabled, during the emergency, the advantages of that reduction. Hence, under this Bill, if an ex-soldier or officer, on examination by the board, is found to be 80 per cent. or over disabled by disease attributable to his service during the emergency period, he will be entitled to the rates set out in Parts I and II of Section 3, sub-section (5) of this Bill. If, however, the award be not final but temporary and if, on subsequent examination, he be deemed by the board to be less than 80 per cent. but, at least, 50 per cent. disabled, he will be entitled to a final pension of £1 a week; but if, on the other hand, at the first examination, he is found to be less than 80 per cent. but at least 50 per cent. disabled, he will be entitled to a final pension of 15/- a week.

The second defect in the Acts is that the rates of pension for disablement, whether due to injury or due to disease, are inadequate. The pension at present provided for an ex-soldier, totally disabled, is 26/- a week plus 5/- a week if married. The inadequacy of that pension is apparent in itself, but it is brought home with greater force when related to the victims of such a disaster as that which, unfortunately, occurred at the Glen of Imaal. Here, we had young men in the prime of life and in the prime of their manhood suddenly thrust from sunlight into complete darkness for the rest of their lives and the only sum we could offer in compensation was 26/- a week. My proposal, therefore, in Section 3, sub-section (5), Part II of the Bill, is to improve the existing rates by increasing the disablement pension from 26/- to 42/- a week, and to double the married pension from 5/- to 10/- a week. Even that increase is not all that I should like it to be, but, at any rate, it has to be conceded that it is a generous contribution compared with the existing rates which I took over.

It is not as good as the rates for civilians injured by bombs.

As regards the rates for officers, the existing Acts related the pension to a percentage of their pay. That worked out favourably for the higher ranks, but it placed the lower at a decided disadvantage. For instsance, the highest pension a second lieutenant could obtain was £109, and the lowest £87 a year.

Under which Act, please?

Under the 1927 Act. That is the Act we are discussing; it amends the 1923 Act.

But were not the figures higher under the 1923 Act?

They were higher, but that was amended by the Government in 1927, and it is the 1927 Act which we are seeking to amend now.

But is that not due to the fact that we are in a war period now, similar to that of 1923?

There is no use in discussing the 1923 Act, which was amended by a former Government, and which this Bill I am bringing in proposes, so far as is humanly possible, to supersede. I should repeat, in case it has been overlooked, that the highest pension a second lieutenant could obtain was £109 and the lowest £87 a year. I propose introducing £120 a year as a minimum for any officer totally disabled, and the effect therefore of the sub-section will be that officers totally disabled will receive, according to their rank, sums varying from £120 to £600 a year pension.

In assessing the merits of the increased pensions provided under this Bill for soldiers, it is important to keep in mind a number of factors. The first is that disablement is not related to a man's economic capacity but to his physical condition, and the fact that a man is even totally disabled does not necessarily mean that he is incapable of earning a livelihood. In point of fact there are men on the pensions registers who are drawing 100 per cent. disablement pensions, and who are, nevertheless, earning substantial salaries or wages. Even in the case of the surviving victims of the Glen of Imaal tragedy, there is every prospect that they too will in time be able to earn a respectable livelihood in addition to the increased pensions provided in this Bill.

In deciding to increase the total pension payable to disabled soldiers, it is necessary in doing so to consider whether the stress should be laid on the disablement or on the married aspect. In the present case it was decided to increase the total pension by 21/- a week, and after due consideration of the many factors involved, we decided that the best way to spread the increase was to double the existing married pension by increasing it from 5/- to 10/- a week, and to increase the disablement pension from 26/- to 42/- a week. We might, of course, have done the reverse, i.e., increased the married pension by 16/- and the personal pension by 5/- a week. But there were convincing reasons for taking the course set out in this Bill. In the first place, only about 25 per cent. of our soldiers are married, and that fact alone pointed to the greater portion of the total increase being placed on the personal rather than on the soldier's married pension.

Had we followed the alternative course we might have placed a disabled man, unmarried on discharge, in a different position if he ever contemplated matrimony. Again, the average Army family consists of between two and three children, and the average family in receipt of widows' and orphans' allowances under the Army Pensions Acts and schemes also consists of about three children. On the basis of those averages, we found that the arrangement adopted in this Bill worked out better for the ordinary soldier, and compared favourably with the position obtaining under the various compensation schemes for emergency voluntary organisations. Moreover, if we adopted any arrangement of emphasising the married, rather than the personal, factor we would have to introduce age limits regarding children's allowances, whereas the arrangement adopted had the decided advantage that the 10/- a week additional pension endoures as long as the man himself lives.

Here I would ask the House not to confuse the married pensions payable to the disabled man himself while he is alive with the widow's and orphans' allowances payable to a widow and orphans when the husband himself is dead. They are two totally distinct things, and yet there has been much confusion of thought and speech regarding them. If a man with, say, a disablement pension of 42/- and an additional married pension of 10/- a week dies, then both pensions cease with his death, but his widow and orphans automatically become entitled not only to pensions under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts but also to allowances under the Army Pensions Acts, and the combined effect of the pensions and allowances is to give the family as much income as they received in respect of marriage allowance while the soldier was serving in the Army. In practice, this means that a soldier's widow may receive 17/6 a week, a widow with one child 24/6, with two children 31/6, with three children 35/-, with four children 36/9, with five 38/6, with six 40/3, and an extra 1/9 a weej in respect of each child, without limit.

Again, I would ask the Senators not to confuse the additional pensions paid to a married soldier with the question, so much in the air at present, of family allowances. This Bill does not purport to deal with that problem. It deals with the problem of compensation for disablement. If and when this State decides to provide children's or family allowances, then we ought all as far as we can see that neither the disabled soldier nor his family will be prejudiced by the provisions of the present Bill.

A third omission in the existing Army pensions code is that it makes no provision for the Army nursing sisters if discharged from the Army through ill-health or injury attributable to service. The sisters were previously covered by the Defence Forces pensions schemes which fix pensions in relation to service, but there was no provision under the Acts covering disease or injury. This Bill repairs that omission in respect of a disease contracted or a wound received during the emergency period, and provides disablement pensions for nurses at the rates set out in Section 4, sub-section (4) of the Bill.

Another grave omission is the failure of the Acts to provide, in the case of death during service, for any dependents of an officer or soldier other than their widows and children. As things stand at present, a soldier may be the sole support of his mother, and yet, if he is killed or dies in service, she is not entitled to any compensation. In view of the fact that about 75 per cent. of the Army are unmarried, and that a very high proportion of that number includes men with dependent relatives, it is obvious that this omission should be rectified. The Act of 1923, dealing as it did with active service conditions, provided not only for the widows and children of deceased personnel, but also for their other dependents, such as parents and grandparents, together with their brothers and sisters if permanently invalided. The Act of 1927, however, which dealt mainly with peace-time conditions, provided as far as personnel discharged after October, 1924, were concerned, only for the widows and children of deceased personnel. In Section 5 of the Bill, therefore, we are reverting in effect to the position which obtained under the Act of 1923, but with two important changes. In the first place, the Bill provides for more than one allowance, where there is more than one totally dependent relative; and in the second, it provides an allowance instead of a gratuity to persons who can show that though not totally, they were at least mainly dependent ona deceased person. Moreover, this Bill will have the effect of qualifying for allowances the other dependents not only of single but also of married soldiers. The allowance payable will be £52 a year in the case of an officer, and £26 a year in that of a soldier.

Am I to understand that £52 or £26 may be paid to more than one person—that there could be three people getting £1 a week or 10/- a week?

Yes, if they are proved to be wholly dependent; if there be none wholly dependent, then the allowance will be paid to one who is proved to have been mainly dependent.

The problems already outlined deal with the Army proper as it exists to-day but in Section 7, which deals with Easter Week men in distree, we are dealing with a problem of another type, and that section is not so much the rectification of an omission as the extension of existing provisions. Here we are dealing with the very special problem of men and women who fought during Easter Week, 1916, and who are now incapable of self-support by reason of age or of permanent incapacity of mind or body. That these men and women demand special consideration is, I think, a subject which needs no elaboration. The section applies to every person who has received a Military Service Certificate under the Acts of 1924 or 1934, in respect of service during Easter Week, or who is in receipt of a disablement pension in respect of a would or injury received or a disease contracted during that week, provided that he or she is incapable of self-support by reason of age or of permanent infirmity of mind or body, and that the yearly means of such person from all sources do not exceed a certain sum.

For an unmarried man or woman that sum will be £78 a year; or if married, £97 10s. a year with an additional sum of £10 8s. a year in respect of each child. In other words. if an unmarried person be without means, he or she will be entitled to £78 a year or if married to £97 10s. a year and to £10 8s. a year in respect of each child. On the other hand, if the person be not wholly without means but be in receipt, say, of a service or disablement pension, the means will be brought up to the scale of allowances outlined. It will thus be seen that every person qualifying under the section will be entitled, from all sources, if single, to 30/- a week, if married to 37/6 a week, and to an additional sum of 4/- a week in respect of each child.

The remaining sections of the Bill are of an administrative nature. Section 8 vests in the Minister for Defence a discretion in making awards under the Bill to take into consideration any gratuties already paid in respect of a deceased person. In some cases which will, undoubtedly qualify under this Bill, ex gratia grants have already been made on the understanding that no statutory provision had or would be made by compensation. Now that such cases will be covered statutorily, power should be taken to recover such grants if the Minister think fit. Section 9 simply prevents the payment of two pensins to an officer's widow in respect of the same event—one under the Defence Forces Scheme and the other under this Bill. The widow of a second-lieutenant, for instance, is already entitled in certain circumstances to £45 a year on the death of her husband, and under this Bill, she might become entitled to another pension of £60 a year. The section simply provides that should get the latter and not the former, and it will be observed that the pensions payable under the Bill are higher than those payable under the scheme.

Finally, Section 10 is intended to relieve the Army Pensions Board of any work which is not strictly of a medical character. As the Acts stand at present, a fairly large volume of work of a non-medical character has to be referred to the board, and that reference occupies time which could be better devoted to work of a strictly medical nature. Judging by the numbers discharged medically unfit since the beginning of the emergency, we expect a large number of applications under this Bill, and in order to expedite their investigation, we are taking power not to refer to the board any matter in which their inquiries would serve no useful purpose.

In presenting this Bill to the Seanad I want to say what I have already said to the Dáil, that this is an urgent Bill. There are many people who will benefit under this Bill only when it passes and becomes law. There are others who will benefit to the extent of the imporvements mentioned, and I appeal to Senators to expedite the passing of the Bill. I am quite certain that all of them have the same sympathy that I have with the people who will be the beneficiaries under the Bill. I should point out that the 1916 men will receive no benefits until this Bill becomes an Act as there are no retrospective payments in that regard.

Could the Minister give an indication of the number of 1915 men who will benefit?

That is benefit under Section 7?

Is it a big number?

I do not think it would be a big number. It only applies to those who by age or otherwise are incapacitated and unable to earn a livelihood. There are 1,700 pensions or less.

I entirely agree with the Minister that in so far as the Bill remedies certain defects in previous legislation it is welcome, but I think the Minister is not correct in describing it as a Bill for the purpose of remedying certain defects, and to give to members of the Army or their dependents the benefits of the latest legislation. I think that the Minister did not state the matter correctly. Incidentally he did state it correctly, but in the beginning of his statement he put it in the wrong light. There are two main Pensions Acts, the 1923 Act and the 1927 Act. As the Minister indicated the Act of 1923 contemplated a war period and war service and gave certain benefits. The Act of 1927 was an Act which, as the Minister says, contemplated peace conditions and, therefore, reduced the benefits. I take it that the Minister will agree that this is a Bill for the purpose of giving compensation on a war footing. It deals with the emergency and that is defined by the Emergency Powers Act. This Bill, therefore, should be a reversion to the Act of 1923, with whatever improvements are necessary by the lapse of time, owing to the increase in the cost of living and the changed outlook of everybody upon this particular matter of compensation for soldiers' dependents. These are the standards by which we ought to weigh this Bill. We should condiser the change in the cost of living and the immense fall in the purchasing power of money.

The cost of living has increased roughly by 50 per cent. and the value of money is less by the same. On that basis it is not correct to say that this Bill is generous. I think it is nothing of the kind. In certain respects the Bill goes back to the Act of 1923 but, in certain other respects this Bill, introduced in 1943, is not as good as the Act of 1923. It is an example of legislation by reference, and you have to look up various Pensions Acts and their schedules and tables before you can come to a proper conclusion. It is quite easy to make a mistake, so some of the things I am going to say are rather by way of question to the Minister. There are two desirable things in the Bill, one is the provision of pension for nurses who are discharged from army service through disease or disablement. We can deal with that when we come to that provision. The provision given already for nurses is not very generous. It was 19/- or 19/6, which is by no means generous. The other thing is the provision for 1916 men who for one reason or another are not able to earn their livelihood. That is a very desirable provision and the number concerned is small. I happened to come across a man over 80 years of age, who was himself with his three sons out in the Rising. He was dependent entirely on a pension of 16/-, 10/- old age pension plus 6/- military service pension. His case will be improved, as I suppose he will get 30/- a week. That is very desirable. In the Second Schedule there is provision for soldiers and for the education of their children, and also provision for officers and a grant for education of officers' children. The 1923 Act provided 15/- for a soldier and that figure is reduced in this Bill.

That is for a married soldier.

That figure is reduced in this Bill to 10/-.

It is the same under the 1923 Act.

I thought it was 15/- under the 1923 Act.

For married officers.

Yes, it was £39 and now it is £30, that is £30 a year for a married officer. That is a reduction. Is that correct?

That is correct.

I think the lump sum here for officers' total disablement is £120. Under the 1923 Act it was £200.

That was a maximum.

And this is a minimum.

It can be raised from the figure of £120 to the figure of £600 according to rank, of course.

But it did not need any particular rank to get £200 under the 1923 Act.

Yes; but then, of course, there were large numbers who were losing.

The point is that a second lieutenant got £200, now he cannot get as much as he got under the 1923 Act. This Army is not a regular professional army; it is much more in the nature of a citizens' army, and the distinction between a second lieutenant and a colonel, from the point of view of their previous career, is not as great as in a regular army. A person who joins this army from a profession, and who becomes a second lieutenant and is 100 per cent. disabled, would get less under this Bill than he would get under the 1923 Act. That certainly is retrogression, and makes the Minister's statement that he is now giving in this Bill the benefit of the latest legislation and the latest views on the subject quite hollow.

There is another point on which I may be quite mistaken. I hope I am. In the 1923 Act there was a provision in which I was very interested then. The child of either a soldier or an officer totally disabled or deceased could get an education grant up to a sum of £35. As I understand this Bill it is based upon the 1927 Act, in which the education facility only applied to officers' children. As far as this Bill is concerned, is it true to say that if an officer is totally disabled there would be an education grant for the children, but if a soldier or noncommissioned officer were totally disabled there would be no education facility?

There would be no education grant.

There again we have retrogression from the 1923 Act.

It did not apply under the 1923 Act either.

Did it not? It did not apply under the 1927 Act, but I am nearly sure it did apply under the 1923 Act. There were allowances for the dependents of deceased soldiers in the Third Schedule to the 1923 Act.

That is the point. The provision was only for widows and children and not for the soldier.

Does that apply in this particular Bill?

Yes, only to the widows and not to the soldier if the soldier is alive.

Does it apply to the children if the soldier is dead?

Well, that is something.

We will not get anywhere if the debate is carried on by question and answer. I think the Senator should make his case and I will try to answer him as far as possible.

This is not a political matter at all. I am simply endeavouring to make myself clear, as I want to put down certain recommendations.

Have I suggested in anything I said that it is a political matter?

No, but I want to make a point.

In making that suggestion, I am thinking all the time of the expedition of this Bill through the House.

So am I. That is the very point. I do not want to put down recommendations in this Bill if they are not necessary, and want to facilitate the Minister as best I can. What I meant when I said it is not a political matter was that instead of the Minister and myself having heated interchanges, it is a matter of the Minister giving me information, which is rather a different thing. I think it would help us to pass the Bill more rapidly if we were quite clear and if the Minister would bear with an individual like myself who never had charge of an army and does not know these Acts very well. I had the misfortune not to be able to go into the matter carefully to-day owing to another job I had to do. I thought that in the 1923 Act a soldier's children could get education facilities but that under this Bill that is not so; but it is so.

It is not correct to say that under the 1923 Act they could get education facilities if the soldier were alive.

No, but if he were dead. There are certain matters in regard to which this Bill is a step backwards from the 1923 Act. The Act to which this Bill is to be compared is the 1923 Act, because that Act covered a period of active service from 1916 to 1924. This Bill purports to cover the period of the emergency which is also being regarded as a period of active service. Therefore, it is these two documents which should be compared. I have demonstrated in certain particulars that this Bill does not go as far as the 1923 Act. It should go further because the cost of living is 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1923. Apart from that, there is much higher expenditure in the State, a much bigger Budget and a very substantial change —for which neither the Minister nor myself happens to be responsible— in the outlook of the people on this and kindred matters.

As far as this House is concerned we were successful when dealing with the Personal Injuries Order made by the Minister for Finance, in persuading the Minister for Finance that his original provisions, which he succeeded in passing through the Dáil, were inadequate and should be altered; and he made substantial alterations in them. In comparing the personal injuries provision for the L.S.F., L.D.F. and A.R.P., I find that in this Bill the L.S.F., L.D.F. or A.R.P. man and the ordinary civilian injured by a bomb—as people were in the North Strand—is better off than this Bill makes the ordinary soldier; and that if he is killed the widow is better off than a soldier's widow or an officer's widow in some cases under this particular Bill. I do not think that should be so. There should be a general scheme of unified outlook on this matter. I understand the Minister's position very well. He had to contend with the Department of Finance but, at the same time, there is collective responsibility in the Government and the Minister has as much responsibility as the Minister for Finance. No settled principle has been adopted for all cases of death or injury. One of the great flaws in this particular Bill is that there are no allowances at all for children—and that is a very serious flaw. For example, a man who is totally disabled, the Minister says, may be able to work and earn money. I have some acquaintance with people who are drawing 100 per cent. disability pensions, and very few of them are able to make any money at all— except a very fortunate few who may have certain capital. The case of a man who is 100 per cent. disabled and able to earn a living is very rare. Perhaps the Minister has some figures in regard to that. If the average family is less than three children the extra expenditure in giving children's allowances as well as an allowance for the widow and an allowance for the man himself when disabled and his wife should surely be adopted.

The whole tendency of thought at the present time among all parties and indeed in many countries is that the family should be recognised and that the man with six children should be placed in a better position than the man with one or two. This Bill ignores that tendency entirely. The man who is killed or disabled and who has a wife and six children is in the same position as if he had only one child. That is a very serious flaw in the Bill. I find for example that a married soldier 100 per cent. disabled gets 42/- plus 10/- for his wife, no matter how many children he has —that is, a maximum of 52/-. If he were an L.D.F. man and were disabled and if his disablement were judged by the medical board to be 100 per cent. he would get 30/- for himself, 7/6 for his wife and 4/- for each child, up to a maximum of 72/-. I cannot understand how it is that in the case of a soldier the maximum should be 52/- but in the case of an L.D.F. man it is 72/-. That seems quite incomprehensible.

Similarly a civilian injured in a bombing—as in the case of the North Strand—may receive up to 72/- if he is injured. If he were killed his wife would get 18/- and 5/- for each child. Here again the Minister may correct me. If a soldier were killed his wife would get 12/6 and 4/6 for each child for not more than four children, making a total of 28/6.

She would get whatever she was receiving under the marriage allowance while her husband was alive—the same sum.

Roughly, what is that?

The Senator was quoting widows' and orphans' pensions. In addition to that, we bring the sum up to what she was receiving while her husband was alive. Between the widows' and orphans pension and the Army pension she would be no worse off than when her husband was alive.

That is in the case of a widow.

That does not apply when the soldier is just disabled, does it?

When disabled, the soldier is in a worse position than an L.D.F. or L.S.F. man. Similarly with regard to Section 3, in the case of married soldiers receiving marriage allowances on the Army establishment, the marriage allowance is not as great as in the case of the L.D.F. or L.S.F. man. So that a soldier and an L.D.F. man may be killed or injured in the same place and in the same way, and the L.D.F. man will get an allowance for his wife but the soldier will not, if he happens to be married and not on the establishment. It can only be a very small point and I think it should be remedied.

The whole business seems to me to show that there was no proper thought given to the matter. There is no connection between the grants given here and the grants given under the Personal Injuries Compensation Order or under the Orders made with regard to the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. I can see no distinction between the Army at the present moment which is a particular kind of Army, and the other forces of the L.D.F. This Army has been recruited specially for the emergency. It is a citizen army which contains people of all ranks and all classes and the distinction between ranks, from the point of view of compensation, is not as sound as if the members of the force were all professionals. I think the Minister has made a very grave mistake in not giving a children's allowance in respect of the soldier who is totally disabled or killed. I think it is also quite indefensible that there should be this distinction between other forces or between civilians and the Army.

There is one other point I should like to make. I wonder how many people are getting pensions of this kind under the 1927 Act? I have an idea that there are not very many. Having regard to the very much increased cost of living, it is difficult to see why distinctions should be made between them and the people who are now going to get increased benefits. I wonder if the Minister has given any consideration to the idea of making these benefits identical? In the meantime, I think this House should certainly recommend to the Minister and to the other House that the principle of providing adequately for a widow left with a number of children or the principle of providing for a man disabled and left to support a number of children, should be recognised and that the children should get an allowance. I of course, support the Second Stage of this Bill, but I also intend to move a recommendation to that effect. There are a number of smaller points with which we can deal on the Committee Stage.

I should like to emphasise the point raised by the last speaker in reference to the desirability of granting adequate children's allowances. An allowance of 10/-, no matter what the size of the family, seems to be altogether too meagre. If this is an indication of the provisions which the Government have in mind in framing a Bill for family allowances, I think it is a very bad portent. The allowance is only 10/-, whether the family consists of either one or six children. There does not seem to be any suitable provision made at all for the education of such children. There was a time in most armies when such children got free school books, the books being paid for by the State. A similar provision should be introduced in this Act. The Bill undoubtedly marks a distinct improvement on the Acts of 1927 and 1923, but when we consider the depreciated value of the £, and the increased cost of living, 42/- per week does not seem to be in keeping with modern ideas of what the State owes to its defence forces. Only 25 per cent. of our soldiers are married. Therefore, the cost of providing adequately for the children of soldiers would not impose a very exorbitant burden on the State. We should do everything to encourage the idea of family allowances, and we ought make a recommendation to the Minister to that effect. As regards the provision for nurses, I think the nurses still have a grievance in that the allowances made for them are so meagre, and I think they should be reconsidered. Some cases have already arisen in which soldiers have been killed by accidental explosions, such as occurred in the Glen of Imaal and along the Wicklow coast. I am aware of a few cases in which victims of these accidents formerly contributed materially to the family budget. There were no existing Acts which would enable the Minister to grant compensation to the parents of young men of 24 or 25 who lost their lives, but the Government in their goodness, or shall I call it, their lack of generosity, considered that a lump sum payment of £32 to the parents was sufficient.

They will get an annual allowance if they can prove that they are wholly or mainly dependent on the deceased soldier.

I am speaking of cases which have occurred already.

These cases are all covered. Every case will be considered on its merits.

It is very difficult where there is a family of five or six, all of whom contribute to the family budget, to estimate exactly what degree of dependency exists, but I should not think that £32 would be sufficient compensation for the loss of a boy who had contributed always to the upkeep of his family. It would be hard to prove what amount exactly such a person contributed, but I think it goes without saying that for a period up to marriage the average son or daughter contributes much more than £32 to the family. These are points that need attention and I support the suggestion of the previous speaker that the Minister should give them reconsideration.

There is not a great deal to be said on a Bill like this which might not be said more effectively on the Committee Stage. There are no differences of opinion in this House as to the wisdom or necessity for passing this measure. I do not know that the Minister was on very sound ground in urging that the Bill must be rushed through, for it could be quite fittingly said that, if it is so urgent, it should have appeared before the Oireachtas many months ago. It strikes me that the Bill in its present form lacks that uniformity which the situation and circumstances of our time demand. It is rather unfortunate that the Minister whose duty it is to go from one end of the country to the other reviewing the Army, addressing not only the military but the civil organisations, brought together for the purposes of defence, the Minister who has to pay tribute to the generosity of the young men who, when called upon, came forward so generously and gallantly to offer their services to the State, should bring in a Bill in which these people are dealt with in such a niggardly fashion. I really feel that the Bill is faulty in so far as that the difference between the total amount required to treat these people generously, and the amount which the Minister proposes to expend under this measure is very small. I think the Minister ought to take the advice given by Senator Hayes and make the benefits for members of the Army at least equal in every respect to those granted to members of civilian organisations like the L.D.F.

I do not quite know why the Minister thinks that there is a case for differentiation. Men from every class walked out of their jobs and into the Army. Those of us who saw them go off in their thirties and forties did not know whether or not they would come back. Neither did their parents. They were going out to give all they had— their lives. The attitude the Minister takes in this Bill is not one that a Minister, with responsibility for the Department of Defence, should take up. It should not be necessary to have the kind of discussion which we must have on a Bill of this kind. The Minister should be more generous even than the State appears to be able to afford. The Minister and his colleagues tell us that the peaceful conditions we enjoy at present are largely due to the fact that these men were ready to come forward and serve. That is either a fact or it is not a fact. We believe it is and, inasmuch as our peace has been maintained, we ought to make our contribution from the State to these men or their dependents if, in the service of the State, their health has failed or their ability to earn a livelihood in the future has been impaired. The future for them should not be more dark than it would have been if they had been able to go back into civilian life in good health.

A point stressed by Senator Hayes was the peculiar way in which the Minister has made provision for children's allowances. He has, apparently, gone on the basis of the average number of children in the families of members of the Army and he has made grants on the basis of two or three children per family. If the Minister went down the country, he would find that the average number of children in a household would be much greater than two or three. If it were not, the population would fall very steeply. Instead of making provision on the basis of a family of two or three, the Minister should inquire why that is the average number. When the average is only two or three, there must be a great many families with only one.

We have the census to go upon, and surely that is not wrong.

I am not disputing the statement of the Minister. I merely ask why the number is so low and how far the policy enunciated by the Minister in this Bill is a determinant in that respect. Provisions of this kind may have a far-reaching effect on the conduct of family life. The Minister should take note of that and inquire why the position is as he states. If that is the drift of things, we would be well advised to ask ourselves whether, in limiting the family income in the manner which the Minister is doing in this Bill, we are not doing something which may have a very detrimental effect on the life of the State. I have not the information but I suggest that the Minister should examine the matter and ascertain whether or not the limited income is not a determining factor in regard to the size of the family.

In one of the sections of the Bill, the Minister makes provision for children's allowances on a different basis in respect of the 1916 men. I do not understand why one group of people should be treated in one way and why the bulk of the people should be treated differently. If the Minister were facing an Oireachtas that had a different point of view from that of the Dáil and Seanad on this Bill, he might feel that his proposals would be criticised for their extravagance. But one thing has to be balanced against another. The material aspects of life must, naturally, strike even the soldier when he finds he has not got to march out to battle and when a certain amount of normality is restored to life after the first urge of patriotism. Bills of this kind are inclined to make young men cynical. They will point to all sorts of people who were requited for services in the past on an entirely different basis from that now being acted upon. I do not think that that is good for the State. I believe that it would be good for the State that men of high spirit and patriotism should be made to realise that the voluntary service they were prepared to offer in a time of crisis was not being measured in meagre terms by the responsible Minister.

The Minister would do well to reexamine the proposals he has put before the Oireachtas. He would have the support of both Houses in improving this measure and making it one in respect of which we would feel that, measured against our capacity to pay, it was a fair contribution. As it is, it can hardly be regarded as such. The anomalies that exist as between different groups are such that it would be difficult for the Minister to stand over them. He makes the point that, even though totally disabled, men may be able to make a contribution to the family budget at some later period of their lives.

It may be that a man who has lost his sight or who has suffered serious injury to his hands may be able, after a long period of training, to earn some money and to contribute to the family budget. But the man must live in the meantime, and his ability to obtain training is, to a considerable extent, determined by the position of the family budget—whether there is enough to go around or not. These considerations ought to be present to the mind of the Minister as well as to the minds of others. I should be very glad to help in making this measure in certain respects more generous than it is.

As the Minister mentioned, this is a very complicated measure. All that emerges clearly is that, when this Bill becomes law, we shall have six Acts dealing with Army pensions. I should like to reinforce the case made by Senator Hayes respecting people who are not, as one might put it, officially married— people who are duly married but whose marriage has not been officially recognised in the Army. It will be a hardship if these people are not recognised as married when the Bill becomes an Act. There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the 50 per cent. disablement. The Minister said that it does not relate to economic capacity, but to say that it does not relate to economic capacity does not justify its effect, because in my opinion there is no such thing as 50 per cent. disablement. If a man is 50 per cent. disabled, he is entirely disabled so far as earning anything with which to maintain himself or his dependents is concerned. If an employer wants the service represented by the 50 per cent. capacity of a man, he will employ a little boy; he will find somebody who will be able to do the amount of work represented by the 50 per cent. capacity of a man. Therefore, I think the £1 and the 15/-, which are the amounts mentioned in respect of 50 per cent. disablement, certainly do not meet the case. Simply to say that this does not relate to the economic capacity of the man does not justify the amount given.

I should like to say, too, that I am always afraid of this phrase "attributable to service". It is very hard to know what "attributable to service" may mean. Those phrases creep into Acts of Parliament, and decisions are given on various occasions which seem to be entirely contradictory. Take for instance the phrase in the Workmen's Compensation Act which says "arising out of and in the course of his employment"; various interpretations have been given of this phrase, which seem to contradict each other, and it is quite possible that interpretations of the phrase to which I have referred in this Bill may be given which will not be at all what the Minister desires. I would suggest to the Minister that he ought to make it clear exactly what he means by "attributable to service". Take, for instance, a soldier coming back from manoeuvres who meets with a serious accident. I could point cut one case where a man coming back to the camp met with a serious accident and was unconscious for a fortnight. Is that attributable to service?

Yes, that would be attributable to service. We could not possibly do without such a phrase as that. What we are covering is disease which might be contracted without being attributable in any respect to service.

I am not doubting the Minister's sincerity at all.

If the Senator can give me some case where a man has suffered some injury as a result of service, and whose claim has been turned down, I will be glad to investigate it.

I have only the general impression that I am afraid of this phrase, and there is a possibility that it may put outside the Act people whom the Minister would wish to have inside it.

I do not think there is any possibility of that.

If the Minister says so, I am quite satisfied.

I do not propose going into this matter in detail. As the Minister says, it is a very complex Bill, but there are one or two things which do upset me about it. One is the references to the 1923 Act. I think one should rather close one's mind to that time, because we must remember that when that Act was brought in the State had only just been set up, and it might be called an experimental Act. A few minutes ago the Minister referred to census returns. There is nothing more futile than statistics and averages. I do not know what the average age of people in this country is. It may be 39 years, 7 months and 3 days, and there may be nobody of exactly that age. If a man has nine children and his allowance is based on an average which works out at 2? children per family, it does not meet justice at all. I am not anxious that the State, in its desire to appear generous, should pour out money, but I do think that, in drawing up this Bill, a mistake has been made in adverting too much to 1923. Let us be quite frank about it; a much more important matter for consideration is what is being done outside this country. I do not want to see a position in which we would be faced by such a problem as desertions from our Army by people who want to go into another army—which is quite a simple thing to do—where conditions are better. What happened in 1923 was appropriate to that time, and it has had to be remedied since by various other Acts. There is no use in throwing our minds back to that time; we are now living in 1943. People do not say: "Are we better treated in the Army now than in 1923?" What does happen—I think the Minister knows this quite well; it is unfortunate but it is a fact—is that people compare the conditions here with those existing elsewhere, and join another military organisation instead of ours.

With regard to children and marriage allowances, I think it is quite right that the Army should say that the commitment of the State to pay marriage allowance shall be determined by an agreement by the State, and shall not be imposed upon the State by the mere act, outside the control of the Army authorities, of a man in getting married. I am quite satisfied that it has happened, particularly in this recent period of big recruitment for the Army, that men have hastened getting married because by getting married at a certain time they would be able to claim marriage allowance, whereas if they postponed it for a bit they would not. But when a man who does happen to have a wife and three children has joined the Army and has been killed or has received total or considerable disablement, I do think you have to look at it in a totally different light.

I do not pretend to have made what I might call a Committee Stage study of the Bill. Section 7 of the 1923 Act says:

The allowances and gratuities respectively specified in the Second and Third Schedules to this Act may be granted to the widow, children, dependents and partial dependents of any officer or soldier who....

When the Minister talks about dependents, I should like to know if the words "dependent" and "wife" and "children" in the 1923 Act apply only in cases where a man was officially on the married strength of the Army and had been drawing the allowances at that time? It does not seem, on a casual glance, to distinguish there officially between those who are on the marriage strength and those who are not on the marriage strength. As I say, I am not anxious that the State should land itself into unnecessary expenditure — what I might call unwanted expenditure—but in the case of children, let us clear our minds of what I might call this humbug of statistics and averages. If a man is killed and he has one child, and another man is killed and leaves ten children, it is no good talking about averages and saying that the average family is two and one third children or three and a quarter children. Those children have to be provided for, even if they do exceed in number the average of all the families in this country.

I think it is a Bill which requires examination more in Committee than in this general way and it is so complex that really one's speeches have to be largely interrogative, asking the Minister what is the concrete effect of the provisions in it. What does seem to be most ominous is this tendency indicated by all these references back: "What did you do in 1923?" We are now in 1943, and we have had a certain amount of experience since 1923. The Act of 1923 had to be supplemented by a great number of other Bills and, at this moment, it is a fairly simple matter for a man not in the Army here to get out of the jurisdiction of this State and join another army. He might be induced, to some extent, to do that by the fact that better conditions are offering in the other service.

As I said, I am doubtful about this Bill because the Minister talks so much about 1923 and about averages. I would like our men in the Army to have the best possible conditions, but I do feel that there is a peculiar situation created here by the fact that it is open to a man to join another organisation. I am not saying that we have got to be dictated to, but if the Government of such a country decides on certain terms we have to bear them in mind here and to consider and recognise their effect on the minds of people in this country and the fact that it may easily make for discontent in the Army. If a man in the Army has a comrade who is killed in the service of this country and sees he is treated very much less generously than in the case of another friend of his killed in another army, it does make for bad feeling. Therefore, I would like, first of all, to judge the thing with our minds completely blank as to previous Acts and completely blank as to averages. It is better to reduce the amount per child or the basic amount given to a man killed or disabled and to spread out the whole sum so as to secure equality between families of different sizes. To say that there should be the same sum up to so many children is absurd. You can say in the case of an unmarried officer or man who has been disabled to a certain extent that if he marries thereafter, the State will not take responsibility because he has married and taken on the responsibility in the light of the knowledge of his own incapacity. But, in so far as a man is killed with dependents or is totally, or almost totally, disabled, I think that the Bill should provide that you could advert to the concrete case of a man who has a wife and seven children and is permanently disabled. Let us have that in our minds. It is no good in thinking that you achieve justice in terms of averages. You do nothing of the sort. It is a human being who suffers or who does not suffer, and not an average.

Ba mbaith liom a rá go n-aontuighim leis na Seanadóirí a chuir fáilte roimh an mBille seo.

Fuarthas locht ar an mBille ach dá mhéid dá dtugas aire do na lochtaí seo, is mó a thuigeas nach raibh mórán brí leo. Is beag Bille a tughadh isteach ariamh nach bhfuarthas locht air, agus is dócha nach bhfhéadfaidhe Bille ar bith a thabhairt isteach gan locht. D'fhéadfainn féin locht fhagháil ar an mBille seo. Ba mhaith liom go rachfadh sé níos fuide. Ba mhaith liom go mbéadh caighdeán an-árd maireachtála ag gach duine sa tír. Ach is rud amháin é bheith ag iarraidh an caighdeán sin a bhaint amach, agus is rud eile é a chur ar fagháil.

Tá mé sásta go bhuil an Bille seo go maith do réir an tsaoghail agus do réir na gcaighdeán atá ann cheana.

I want to join with those who have spoken already in welcoming this Bill. I listened very carefully to whatever criticism Senators had to make on it, and I must say I felt the more the debate proceeded that there was very little substance in these criticisms. No doubt, fault could be found with the Bill but, then, there is no Bill no matter how excellent, that has been introduced or may be introduced with which fault could not be found. For instance, I could say that I am not satisfied with this Bill; it does not go far enough. I have certain ideals as to what is a reasonable standard of living. I would like to see every member of the community enjoying these standards, and, like everybody else, I will work for the achievement and bringing about of these standards, but it is one thing to wish these standards should obtain and another thing to make them available.

When I got the Bill and read through the sections prescribing the amount of compensation what ran through my mind was, not that I should go to the 1923 Act, or to any other Act, but that I should see to what extent the pensions and allowances proposed under this Bill would compare with the incomes enjoyed by most of the people in employment in the country at present. I think, if reasonable care is taken and reasonable comparisons are made, it will be found that the allowances prescribed under this Bill compare very favourably with the incomes that are obtainable at present by the great majority of the people in the country who are in employment, and I think, since that is so, we have every reason to be satisfied with the Bill. For instance, one might take a very considerable body of our citizens —agricultural workers—and consider their wages. One might include other groups of employees who have to work very hard and who have to rear families. If their incomes are averaged out it will be found that the allowances provided under this Bill are, on the whole, generous. For that reason I am particularly satisfied with the Bill.

A point that occurs to me in connection with the position of people who may get pensions or allowances under the Bill is whether they will be entitled to free medical benefits. They would, I expect, be entitled to medical benefits under certain of the Public Health Acts, but I would like to feel that men who are disabled and who are entitled to pensions under this Bill will be provided with special medical facilities. If that is the case it will leave the Bill a very much better one than I think it is. On the question of children's allowances, I was particularly interested to hear the Minister's explanation as to why he did not provide specifically for children in the Bill but that he rather decided to make a definite permanent marriage allowance. I am satisfied that on balance he has made the best arrangement possible, because it will undoubtedly be to the advantage of the person who will obtain an allowance or pension under this Bill that he should get a permanent marriage allowance rather than that he should get a smaller pension with certain allowances for children, that would cease after the lapse of a certain number of years. It does not follow, I am sure, that in due course, should provision be made for children or family allowances, a person getting a pension under this Bill will be debarred from obtaining such children's or family allowances.

I do not think so, but we can see that it should not happen.

It should not happen. Therefore I think the Bill is much better than it would seem at first sight. I do not know that apart from that I have anything else to say except a word or two regarding the differentiation between the provision made for the L.D.F. men and members of the Army. One thing that did occur to me, not on the occasion of this Bill, but when the question of provision for the L.D.F. was first under discussion, was that there would seem to be reasonable justification for the provision of something on a more generous scale for the L.D.F. than for the Army proper. The reason I felt that was because so many members of the auxiliary forces are men who have to carry on their own particular avocations and have in addition to give as much service, practically as much time in the form of attendance on parades, as the regular soldier.

Mr. Hayes

No, they never have to. Surely there are no such cases.

Their responsibility would not be very much less should the emergency develop in a way which we hope will never occur. Again, great numbers of these men who are in the auxiliary services are men who normally have special qualifications and normally draw higher incomes than the men in the Army. Should anything happen to them in the course of their military service I expect they will not be entitled to superannuation or pensions from their civil employments. Because of that I think there is a case for differentiation. On the other hand, it does not appeal to one that there should be differentiation between any particular class, but that applies not alone to the Army in this instance but to every walk of life.

Mr. Hayes

Take a carpenter in the Army and the L.D.F. What is the differentiation? Or take engineers in the Army and in the L.D.F., it is the same thing.

One point I liked in Senator Fitzgerald's speech was that we should not pay too much heed to isolated cases or to averages, because averages suffer from many defects and the taking of isolated cases is also defective. The average is, of course, all right providing one always remembers its limitations. The only way to deal with the matter would be to bring in legislation under which every individual case should be dealt with. As to whether that could be done I think there will be differences of opinion. Whatever we do there will always remain cases of hardship. Anyway, taking it all in all, I think there is some case for differentiation. Allowing for that and for the other matters to which I referred, I am satisfied that this Bill is of signal value and I hope there will be very little delay in passing it through and making its advantages available to those who, unfortunately, may need to avail of its provisions.

Senator Fitzgerald reminded us that this was 1943, but the Minister has had that well in mind, because in this Bill he has made provision for men who suffer as the victims of the Glen of Imaal disaster suffered. That is why most of us welcome this Bill and recognise its urgency. We cannot think of the Act of 1923 or the Act of 1927, and we cannot think of this Bill only as a Bill, but we must think of its effect upon the people. Therefore, I am glad that the Bill has been introduced, so that more generous provision may be made for these men. I welcome the provision to cover the case of the nursing profession who are totally disabled in the service. That is a thing that was overlooked and this Bill fills that lacuna. We welcome the provision made for the 1916 men who are prevented from earning their livelihood. I think that such criticism as there has been was healthy criticism, designed in the spirit of making this Bill a real mark of the country's appreciation of the Army. Senator Hayes said that our Army is a citizen army and the old fashioned distinction between officers and men does not exist. We ought to take them as men who have given everything to serve their country in its hour of danger, and for everything that can be done to help them for their service we are very grateful. It is very important that the status of the Army should be high. The Army should have a high appreciation of itself and of its part in the national life. That will be so if the country shows, in a generous way, its appreciation of the work and provides, as far as possible, for the wives and children of soldiers who may have given their all, either through total disability or by giving their lives, in the service of their country.

I support what has been said by Senator Mrs. Concannon. I welcomed this Bill when I received a copy of it, particularly the section which deals with the 1916 participants. Like Senator Mrs. Concannon, I feel that we should be prepared to go to great lengths to show our appreciation of the men who now fill the breach, just as those men did 27 or 28 years ago. Any provision that can be made in the way of pensions for men who suffered disability, particularly 100 per cent. disability, should receive the unanimous vote of this House. I particularly welcomed the section in regard to the nursing services. The nurses are a splendid body of women who are equally prepared with the men of the fighting forces to sacrifice their lives and health, and they are deserving of all the recognition that is now being given to them.

I would like to add just a few words to what has been said already by way of welcoming this measure. I congratulate the Minister on having introduced it. I agree largely with Senator Mrs. Concannon that the criticism was mostly helpful criticism. If some of the speakers may have appeared to be somewhat critical, the general impression has been created, as a result of the discussion, that the questions which were asked were asked because of a lack of information—which, perhaps, it was not possible to gain beforehand. Senator Baxter would like to create the impression that if he were the Minister he would pay out the money lavishly. Perhaps, some time, we would have a trial of what Senator Baxter would do under similar conditions. It is a grand thing to be able to criticise the Minister who is handling a Bill, but it is a different matter altogether to be the man responsible for dealing with it. The Minister has endeavoured to do the greatest possible amount of good to the greatest possible number of people, so far as the Army is concerned. We had certain criticism because a greater allowance was not made for the married soldiers. As the Minister has pointed out, only 25 per cent. of the men are married—because of the peculiar circumstances under which our Army was recruited, perhaps. Therefore, rather than criticise the Minister's lack of generosity to the 25 per cent., we should congratulate him on the extremely generous attitude he has adopted towards the 75 per cent. Senator Baxter goes on to repeat the statement made by the Minister, that the average military family consists of only two or three children, and points out that that is the fault of the Government, in its attitude to families. If Senator Baxter would look up the statistics, he will find that the average Army family, in this or practically any other country, is inclined to be on the small side. He will find that that is the case, with the possible exception of Mexico, where, I believe, the position is different.

What is the average there?

I do not know. It is not fair to suggest or try to prove, in dealing with a Bill of this kind, that it is as a result of Government policy that the figures have gone down. Senator Fitzgerald went ridiculously far in his criticism, when he suggested that, because higher gratuities or pensions may be available in other armies, we should follow suit here.

What I said was that there was a more important analogy to draw, that to compare 1943 to 1923 was more unreal than to compare what was happening here with the position somewhere else.

The Senator suggested that, as pensions were greater in other armies, there would be a tendency towards unrest here, that if a man were killed or completely disabled in another army, his friend here might find that more generous compensation was paid than would be paid in his own case, and that would bring very unsatisfactory results and be likely to create unrest. If Senator Fitzgerald wishes to be logical, he should say that because certain other armies not very far away—the American army, for instance—pay their men a higher rate of pay, there should be cause for unrest here. My attitude towards that is that the men of our Army did not join because of the pay but because it was their Army, the Army of their own country. No matter what the pay may be in another army, it would not provide any temptation, in the case of 95 per cent. of our soldiers. It is unreasonable to put up suggestions of that kind. I think we should act on the suggestion of Senator Mrs. Concannon—that the criticisms were to a large extent helpful criticisms and that we should realise the importance of this measure—and give the Minister every possible help in putting the Bill through the House. Senator Baxter says that the attitude of the Minister is to "order" that the Bill be rushed through. The Minister did not order anything of the kind; nor, as far as I know, did any other Minister, since this Government came into power. He merely appeals to the House to give him the Bill with all possible speed. This is a very important matter and not one which should be taken lightly, as there are 7,500 people waiting for the Bill to be passed. If it were left to Senator Baxter, he could paint some very glowing pictures for us of people who are waiting to benefit under this Bill. If he and any other Senators who would be likely to delay this Bill, would just imagine those people standing before them, it would make them put the Bill through with all possible speed.

Paradoxical as it may seem, I am under the impression that I answered all the questions before they were asked. The statement I made was, I think, a pretty full statement. It gave the section-by-section meaning of the Bill, and, apart from a few points, I think there is very little for me to say. I cannot say, of course, that, if I were given an unlimited amount of money to deal with this particular problem, I probably would not be as liberal as most of the Senators here who have spoken on both sides of the House, but however, there is a restraining force at hand, and I have to work subject to that force. I want to be frank with the House. A certain sum of money was placed at my disposal which I could have expended, I suppose, in three or four different ways, but I did what, in my opinion, was best. It may be that what I did does not coincide with the opinions of some Senators in this House, but such difference of opinion must always exist. A sum which represented 52/- per case was placed at my disposal. I could have, if I so desired, left 26/- with the soldier and spread the remainder over his wife and children. If I had done that it is possible that I would have removed the criticism that I was not, or did not appear to be, making any provision for the children of a soldier. In fact such provision is contained in the 52/-. A sum of 42/- is placed at the disposal of the man, together with the sum of 10/- for his wife. As Senator Buckley has remarked, if that allowance is compared with the wage paid in, perhaps, the largest wage earning industry in the country, it is a reasonably generous allowance, not, perhaps, as generous as I would be prepared to make it if it were left solely to my decision, or not as generous as if it were left to many Senators here, but, having examined the matter carefully for quite a long time in consultation with my officials I decided that this was the way we should expend the money. Whether that is a wise way, or whether it should have been distributed some other way is a matter of opinion, but I want to assure the House that, as far as the amount is concerned, it is the maximum that can be provided, and that I can do no more than I have done. I have done the best I could within the limits of that amount of money, and any question of adding to that amount, as far as I am concerned, does not arise.

Some questions were raised as to the difference between the amount an L.D.F. man and a serving soldier will receive. I want to remind Senators who have spoken on that subject that L.D.F. grants are subject to a means test. Senators are no doubt aware of that. The 72/6 is subject to an earning capacity which is limited to 26 weeks. It is only when there is a fourth child in a family that the L.D.F. man will receive a higher allowance than the soldier. For instance, an L.D.F. man gets 30/- a week if he is injured while the soldier will get 42/-. If the L.D.F. man is married he will get 37/6d. a week while a married soldier will get 52/-. The L.D.F. man with one child will get 41/6d. while the soldier still gets 52/-. If there is a second child the L.D.F. man gets 45/6. and the soldier retains his 52/-. It is only when it comes to the fourth child that the allowance to the L.D.F. man is somewhat better. He receives 53/6d., while the soldier still gets 52/-.

I have no more use for statistics than has Senator Fitzgerald. While we know that the figures are carefully collected, that they are based on knowledge accumulated over the years and that they are probably correct in every respect, they do not, in fact, show you the picture you want to see. They do not show you a position that I know myself must exist in the Army, that there are men in the Army who have six and seven children, but I believe from the information I have been given, when I was investigating this question, that such men are few and far between. The actual figures given to me show that the average number of children in a soldier's family is 2½. I still say I have not very much use for that type of figure, but I must take cognisance of the fact that that figure is there and that it bears some relation to the actual facts.

I had to ask myself would it be fair to leave the private soldier with 26/- in order to secure a greater amount for the few men with larger families. I drew a picture of the situation somewhat like this. I had in mind those fine young fellows I interviewed when they became convalescent—the three young men who were injured in the Glen of Imaal. They were as strong and as fine physical specimens as you would like to meet anywhere. I was conscious of the fact that with the exception that these men had lost the great gift of sight, they were perfect specimens of manhood. I had to ask myself the question: how many other men might be in a similar position to these men? Was I going to endanger their future by leaving them with 26/- as the years went on, perhaps leaving them in the position in which they would have only that 26/- with whatever else they were able to earn as a result of the training they received?

I concluded that the best thing to do in every case was what I eventually did. That is the only explanation I can give in respect to the peculiar fact that we are giving 42/- to a man with an allowance of 10/- for his wife and apparently making no provision for his children. I want to assure Senator Fitzgerald that I did not raise the question of the 1923 Act. It was his colleague Senator Hayes who made various comparisons between the 1923 Act and this Bill. I should say, of course, that there are two sides to the question. Senator Hayes may maintain that the 1923 Act was better than the present measure. In some respects, no doubt, it was. In other respects, it was not, because, in the Act of 1923, there was no provision for disablement due to disease. I am including that provision in this Bill and that is a big improvement. The Act of 1923 did not provide any allowances for those mainly dependent on the earnings of members of the Army. In this Bill, we provide for those who can prove that they were mainly dependent on the earnings of a soldier. The 1923 Act made no special provision for 1916 men——

The 1916 men were, of course, 20 years younger then.

I grant that. I stated in the Dáil that, in my opinion, this was not a controversial Bill and that it should not be dealt with in a controversial way. I said that it was a Bill to provide improved conditions for soldiers who had received injuries or who were likely to receive injuries. In that respect, there is no question that the improvements are substantial. Senator Hogan was worried about the words "attributable to service." It stands to reason that in a Service Pensions Bill these words should appear. Diseases could be developed which would not be attributable to service and it would be foolish and fallacious to suggest that pensions should be paid in respect of those types of disease. Then, men, while serving as soldiers, sometimes receive injuries under conditions which have nothing to do with their duty. These injuries may be received while they are on a motor drive or cycle run while off duty and injuries received under such conditions should not entitle them to a pension. Any disease, would or injury which can be proved to be attributable to service will, certainly, be rewarded with the grant of a pension. If any Senator has any doubts about the refusal of a pension by reason of the interpretation of the words to which I have referred, I shall be glad to investigate the case.

Again, I plead with the House to give me all stages of this Bill as quickly as possible. There is a large number of persons in dire distress who would be relieved following the passing of this Bill. Until it does pass, the conditions which I mentioned in my opening statement will prevail.

Question put and agreed to.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

I would be glad if the Seanad would facilitate me by taking the Committee Stage now. I have been frank with the House and have told Senators what the position is. We could discuss this matter for quite a long time and, at the end of the discussion, I could do nothing more.

Surely the Bill can be finished next Tuesday? The Minister's argument, that the Bill is necessary to meet the needs of certain people, is quite sound, but we are here for the purpose of examining Bills and we require some time to go through each section and ascertain what the various provisions mean. I do not see any objection to giving all the remaining stages in one day, but I suggest that that day should be next Tuesday.

I do not want to rush the House.

As this Bill is a Money Bill, only one further stage is really involved—the Committee Stage.

I do not want to be unreasonable. If I get a promise that I will get all the stages on the next sitting day—I presume that will be next Tuesday—I shall be satisfied.

So far as I am concerned, I am agreeable to the Bill being taken on next Tuesday, but a number of Senators have suggested to me that Tuesday would be an inconvenient day for meeting—that, in fact, travel would be difficult on any day during Holy Week. Could we not finish the Bill to-morrow?

From the point of view of drawing up recommendations that is practically impossible. It seemed to us that next Tuesday would, probably, be the most convenient day for dealing with the Bill. You cannot expect that, after Second Reading, nobody is going to avail of the Committee Stage to put in recommendations nor could you expect them to put them in and have them available for discussion to-morrow afternoon.

I suggest that we take all the stages next Wednesday week.

That would be the last of the 21 days available for consideration of the Bill.

I do not think we will be meeting on Tuesday.

The idea is that we should meet on Tuesday.

I am willing to have the Bill disposed of on Tuesday if that course is convenient to the Seanad.

Is it not possible to finish the Bill to-morrow?

A section of our group cannot attend to-morrow.

It would be difficult to put down recommendations for to-morrow.

We have had experience of several matters—the Damage to Property Bill and the Order made with regard to personal injuries compensation, for example, in respect of which we had very helpful and fruitful discussions with the Minister for Finance. We succeeded in making certain improvements in these measures—important improvements. We may not be so successful in this case, but there is no reason, this not being a controversial matter in the larger political sense, why we should not try. We would be in a better position to try next Tuesday than we would be to-morrow. We would then have the advantage of having this debate digested, so to speak. Travel facilities, I am informed, during next week will be similar to those in any other week. I suggest Tuesday for the remaining stages.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 20th April.
Top
Share