Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Apr 1943

Vol. 27 No. 21

Army Pensions Bill, 1943— (Certified Money Bill) — Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I take it that Section 2 will have this effect when passed, that we will have people in receipt of disablement and disability pensions for the period from "1916" to April, 1922, and from April, 1922, to October, 1924. These are under the 1923 Act, as amended in 1927. The 1923 Act was intended to cover, I presume, the emergency or war period. The 1927 Act then covers the period of the peace. We have people with pensions under the 1923 Act, people with pensions under the 1927 Act, and the period from October, 1924, up to the beginning of the present emergency. This Bill, when it becomes law, will deal with disabilities occurring during the present emergency, from September, 1939, until the end of the emergency, that is until some time after the war. We will, therefore, have, I take it, three sets of people receiving rather different rates of pension. Is that not so? Presumably, when the emergency is passed, we will have a permanent Defence Forces Act and a permanent Pensions Act dealing with what I might call normal times. That is, of course, rather in the realms of prophecy. Is not that the general scheme?

That is the general scheme. We need only consider now the people who will receive pensions under this particular Bill. No one else is affected.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move recommendation No. 1:—

In page 3, after the word "annum" at the end of the note to Part I, that the following words be added:—

"and in addition there shall be paid to an officer whose degree of disablement has been assessed at not less than 80 per cent. an allowance of 4/- per week in respect of each dependent child under 18 years of age".

This first recommendation is intended to test the principle of allowances for the children of people who have received 100 per cent. or up to 80 per cent. disablement. The first provision deals with officers. In the arrangements with regard to the L.D.F. and A.R.P. certain provisions are made recognising the existence of families in the case of people who are disabled. As a matter of fact, the arrangement is that for 100 per cent. disablement certain allowance is given to the wife and so much for each child. Then there is proportionate allowance for the other degrees of disablement down to the lowest recognised degree. In this particular provision in this Bill that principle is not recognised. I know that officers, as a matter of fact, will get pensions according to their actual pay, a certain proportion of their pay. In the Act of 1923 it was recognised that the Army was suddenly mobilised and ranks were not recognised at all for this purpose. A flat rate of £200 was given. Some people under this particular section get less than £200, if totally disabled. It seems to me that the principle that children should be recognised as a liability and that the State should help the man who has in fact children depending on him, although he is himself incapacitated and unable to work owing to injuries received while on service, should be acknowledged. For that reason I put down this first recommendation to add the same proviso here, that is to say, 4/- per week in respect of each dependent child under 18 years of age, as applies in the provisions for L.D.F. and A.R.P. I would like to hear the Minister on the reason why that particular principle is not being recognised in this Part of the Bill.

If this recommendation were accepted the whole financial basis of the Bill would have to be reconstructed. That would have the effect of lowering the proposed rate of disablement pensions and would, undoubtedly, affect disadvantageously the great majority of the Army officers. That is a fact. I have already explained that this Bill increases the minimum disablement pensions payable to officers, from £87 12s. 0d. to £120 a year, that it raises their married pension from £20 to £30 a year, that the rates of pension can go as high as £600 a year. So that the advance in this Bill over the 1927 Act is considerable and, as far as I am concerned, it is the limit to which I can go.

Surely the comparison between the 1927 Act and this Bill is quite illusory. This is a Bill which is going to deal with an emergency, with war conditions. The Bill with which this should be compared is the 1923 Bill. In the 1923 Bill provision was made, as was appropriate to the circumstances of that particular moment, of a flat rate of £200 for all officers who were totally disabled and an allowance of £39 a year, that is, 15/- a week. That was reduced in the peace-time measure of 1927 to £20 a year. It is now being increased to £30 a year but, although the £30 is an increase upon the 1927 Act, it marks in fact a decrease on the 1923 Act. I do not understand the Minister when he says that this would be prejudicial to most officers. Why should it be? Why should we not recognise that people who have given service and who have children have greater responsibility than people who have not got children, that they are a greater asset to the State and should be assisted? Why should not that principle be recognised? I do not understand what he means by saying that it would be prejudicial. In fact, it would help those who are married and those who have families as contrasted with those who are not married or those who, being married, have not families. Is that not so?

The position is that we want to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people, and this is the way we can do that. Under the Act which the Senator is speaking about, the maximum amount was £200. It did not matter how many men there were who were entitled to more than that; they could not get any more than £200. Under this Bill a second-lieutenant can receive up to £120, and a captain, a major, a commandant, a colonel and a general can go on receiving graduated rates which will go from £120 to £600. That is the only reason.

I find it rather difficult to follow the line of the Minister's argument. I am not personally interested as to whether this Act is better or worse than the 1923 Act or the 1927 Act. If it is better, all to the good. It does seem to me that this recommendation introduces a principle, and that the House should make up its mind what view it takes of this particular principle. I have great sympathy with the position of the Minister, and I imagine that any Minister in his position would want to make the largest possible provision. We may take that as a reasonable assumption. I have great sympathy with the Minister who, possibly, finds himself curtailed as to the total amount of money that is available.

The position of this House is quite different. We are not responsible for the amount allocated. Our duty is to make recommendations to the Dáil, if we think that ought to be done. If the Dáil does not see its way, in its control of the purse, to do as we request, that is the end of the matter and we have no further responsibility. Recently, we dealt with two compensation matters closely allied with the question of Army pensions. We took a completely different view on these questions of compensation, which were contained, in one case, in a Bill and in the other, in an emergency Order, from that which the Dáil took. We debated both matters quite freely and gave our views. Having heard our case, the Minister for Finance felt it was the duty of the State to make greater provision than had been made. Therefore, the Seanad should consider these recommendations not from the point of view that the Minister can get from the Department of Finance only a certain amount of money but from the point of view of what ought to be done if these matters are to be handled wisely and rightly.

We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the conscience of the world has been considerably awakened with regard to the treatment of men serving in armies and that what seemed quite good enough for a soldier as regards pay, pension, treatment and allowances for dependents 20 years ago is not accepted as adequate to-day. I do not think that it will be so accepted in the future. This recommendation deals with a question of principle. If a man has a family dependent upon him, if his disablement is 80 per cent., or over, and if his children are under 18, I cannot see any answer to the claim that the State should help him to provide for them. There is no use in saying that something else may have to be cut in order to make this provision. We are not immediately concerned with that but we are concerned with the principle. That a married man serving in the Army who becomes 80 per cent. disabled and whose children are under 18 should get no allowance other than he would have got if childless is a wrong principle and not one to which the Seanad should agree.

When the Minister says that he is trying to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, he does not meet the case which has been made. The Minister has no need to apologise to anybody if he proposes to do justice to the men who have joined the Army in this period of emergency. There is a considerable moral obligation on the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Defence, to see that the men who answered their country's call and his call will not have their lives and the lives of their families destroyed because of their having given a display of patriotism of a higher order than a great many of their generation. If the Minister errs at all, he should err on the side of generosity. To say that he is restricted from doing what is just because he has been given only a certain amount of money which he must distribute so as to afford the greatest good to the greatest number is not an answer to the argument which has been advanced nor is it, as he says, his major problem. His major problem is to ensure that the men who have joined up are treated justly by the State. They have gone out to offer their lives, if necessary, to defend the rights and liberties of the citizens and to maintain the State. If, in the course of duty, they are so disabled as to be rendered incapable of working for their families in the future, there is an obligation on the State and on the Minister, as directly representing the citizens, to have provision for these officers and their families.

It must be remembered that the main body of the officers who will come under this Bill are young men. Some of them have been only a short time married. I do not know what consideration the Minister has given to the problem of what will happen if an officer, in such circumstances, finds himself with inadequate income. What will be the effect of that on family life? That is a point of view which I brought to the Minister's attention on the last occasion, and it is a point of view which should not be forgotten. The fact that these men are young should be taken cognisance of. Restrictions should not be imposed on the income of these men which would make their family life different from that which ought to be the normal state, or different from that which the Catholic Church would, certainly, desire it to be. That should be the fundamental consideration with the Minister, and the effort to measure the money against the injuries that have to be compensated is only of secondary importance. If the State had to endure considerable trials, which we may be saved because these men answered their country's call, money would not be the first consideration. The Minister ought to approach this problem from a different angle than that of distributing a lump sum over a number of people as equitably as he can. His first consideration ought to be to do justice, and to ensure that the family of the disabled man, no matter how numerous, will be adequately provided for. Proper provision should be made for a soldier of this State who, because of injuries, is deprived of the use of his physical or intellectual faculties in winning for his family those necessaries of life which they are entitled, as a God-given right, to enjoy.

I am in favour of this recommendation. The next recommention will be affected by the decision on this one and I should rather reserve what I have to say until the next amendment comes before us. As this recommendation deals with officers, I am afraid that, if it be not carried, there is no hope for the next one.

I do not understand what Senator Foran meant by what he has just said. The first recommendation does not govern the second and the decision on the first recommendation does not necessarily govern the decision on the second recommendation. I do not think it is right to say that the Seanad is more concerned with officers than with men. I am not and I do not think that many of us are. To be quite fair, I do not think that the Minister is, either. That is a red herring which should not be drawn across our track. What I am endeavouring to get the Minister and the House to agree to is that a person who sustains injury which will prevent him from earning his livelihood should, if he has children, be better treated than if he has not. That seems to be axiomatic. One of the Minister's points is that senior officers will get higher pensions, on disability, according to their ordinary pay but children under 18 will, probably, occur most frequently in the families of those in the lower ranks who will get a lower rate of pension. I think we ought to test the feeling of the House on this principle, which applies to the second recommendation as well.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 21.

  • Barniville, Henry L.
  • Baxter, Patrick F.
  • Butler, John
  • Counihan, John J.
  • Crosbie, James.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Kelly, Peter T.
  • McGee, James T.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • Parkinson, James J.

Níl

  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Byrne, Christopher M.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Goulding, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Frederick.
  • Healy, Denis D.
  • Johnston, James.
  • Kennedy, Margaret L.
  • Lynch, Peter T.
  • Magennis, William.
  • O Buachalla, Liam.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • O'Donovan, Seán.
  • O Máille, Pádraic.
  • O'Neill, Laurence.
  • Nic Phiarais, Maighréad.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Stafford, Matthew.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Butler and Crosbie; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.
Question declared negatived.

I move recommendation No. 2:—

In page 3, that the following note be added to Part II:—

Note.—In addition to the married pension payable to a soldier under this Schedule there shall in addition be paid to a soldier whose degree of disability has been assessed at not less than 80 per cent. an allowance of 4/- per week in respect of each dependent child under 18 years of age.

The case for recommendation No. 2 is a great deal stronger than recommendation No. 1, although the principle is the same. Part II deals with soldiers who are disabled and, in the recommendation I am endeavouring to provide that a soldier whose degree of disablement is not less than 80 per cent. should get, not only the sum of money provided in the Table, but also get a marriage allowance, and 4/- in respect of each dependent child under 18 years of age. In order to judge the justice of that particular recommendation we should examine what was provided in 1923, and what is provided by this Bill in 1943.

In 1923 a soldier who was 100 per cent. disabled got 42/- a week, plus 10/- a week marriage allowance, with no provision for children. That is exactly what he gets now in 1943. The provision is identical now with what it was 20 years ago. But the cost of living has increased by 50 per cent. and the Budget of the State is more than doubled. The situation to-day is very different from the situation 20 years ago. As well as the fall in the value of money, or the increase in the cost of living, there is, of course, as Senator Douglas has pointed out, the advance in people's attitude towards. soldiers, towards wounded men, and towards their dependants, and the advance that has taken place not only in this country but in neighbouring countries and in Europe on the question of children's allowances. The Bill as it stands does not recognise any of those advances. It puts a man in the identical position now that he would have been in 20 years ago. Remember, we are providing now for the period of the emergency, and we may be providing for pensions which will be payable in some few years to come when the cost of living apparently, if we are to judge by our past experience, will be constantly rising.

What I do not understand about the framing of this particular measure is that it does not accept the principle adopted in the Orders which have been made with regard to pensions for members of the L.D.F. or for members of the A.R.P. service. Under those Orders a man gets an allowance; he gets an allowance for his wife and he gets an allowance for each child, without limit. On the last occasion, I think both the Minister and myself were wrong in saying that there was a 72/- limit. There is no limit. That 72/- applies to compensation for loss of earning power. There is no use in saying to a man who has seven children that only one man in four in the Army is married. That is no consolation to a man who finds himself totally disabled consequent upon service to the State, and who has a wife and seven children to support. Neither is it any consolation to a man with seven children to tell him that the average number of children in Army families is 2.7. Even if you make it the round number, and say that the average is three children, it is no consolation to a man with seven children to find that, because he has exceeded the average, he will get no additional funds, to meet the liabilities which both the State and the Church urged him to undertake.

I think it is absolutely desirable—I find it difficult to see how anybody can argue against it—that we should recognise that people with families, who incur total disablement or what is almost total disablement, should get assistance to rear those families. I am, therefore, proposing that in the case of soldiers, they should get the allowance prescribed here, a marriage allowance, and in addition 4/- per week in respect of each dependent child under 18 years of age. If, as the Minister stated, three-fourths of the men are unmarried, and if the average family is three, then the increased expenditure will not be very large, and, since the principle involved is an important one, I think we should adopt it. If, later on, a scheme of children's allowances is put into operation by some Government, it can be put into operation with the knowledge that the right thing had already been done in this particular case. Since we have adopted the principle of compensation for personal injuries, by bombs, let us say, in the case of the L.D.F. and A.R.P. personnel, it seems to me that there are additional and stronger reasons for adopting it in the case of soldiers in the Army. Therefore, I move the recommendation.

I should like to support this recommendation. I can speak from experience, from living in a district where soldiers settle down after leaving the Army, and generally their families are comparatively large. Those men cannot possibly afford to give to those children the nutriment they require. Their rents are comparatively high, and in some cases the costs of essential commodities are practically double what they used to be. If adequate allowances are not provided for those children, they will be undernourished and emaciated. Their fathers are robust men—they must be healthy in order to be fit for the Army —but the thin limbs and frames of those children are an indication that they are not properly nourished. We can appreciate the Minister's difficulties, but the increased costs would be more than compensated for by the increased health of those children. Every day we have appeals for hospital treatment for them. Many of them are in grave danger of falling into consumption—indeed, many of them have already done so—by reason of overcrowding and lack of nourishment. It would be a pity to see the offspring of soldiers who have risked their lives for the State rendered incapable, through lack of proper nourishment, of serving their country in the future if they should be required to do so. The increased expenditure would not be very large, since only one-fourth of the men in the Army are married. I think this matter of children's allowances is a very important one, and the Minister should give it serious consideration.

I am not accepting this recommendation. Again, I want to remind members of the House that I have increased the soldier's pension from 26/- to 42/-, and I have increased the married pension from 5/- to 10/-. In that respect, I want to point out that the allowance which Senator Hayes is discussing at the moment would cease when the children reach a certain age, but this married pension will endure as long as the husband lives, so that the 52/- is a permanent sum which will continue during the life of the soldier. The allowance for the children ceases when they reach 16 years of age in the case of one group and 18 years in the case of the other. In these circumstances, I do not think I can add anything to what I have said already. If I were to accept this recommendation, I would have to recast the whole Bill, and I am not prepared to do that.

The Minister seems to think it a virtue to have increased the marriage allowance and has pointed out that it would endure, whereas the children's allowances would disappear when the age of 18 had been reached. These children have to be maintained until they reach the age of 18 and, if the measure goes through as arranged here, many of them will not live to the age of 18, on account of malnutrition. No man or wife could provide proper nourishment for four or five children on the allowance set down here. It is on these grounds that I want to support the recommendation, and I am sincere in supporting it. I do not think it is right or proper that a man who offered his services, by joining the Army, to defend the country in its hour of need, should have to live on public assistance or on some other charity when he leaves the Army.

We have a duty and responsibility to these people, and here is the opportunity to carry it out, by providing sufficient funds to enable these people to rear their families in a reasonable standard of comfort. Under this Bill, as it stands, a considerable number of soldiers with this very limited pension will not be able to maintain their families or give them the nourishment necessary to build up healthy bodies and make them good citizens in the future. I thoroughly agree with what has been said already by Senator Douglas and Senator Hayes, that the whole outlook on this matter all over the world has changed and that people are realising more than ever their responsibility to the soldier and his dependents. I hope our people will not be far behind in the advance that is being made all over the world. I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider his whole attitude on this matter of children's allowances.

In this connection, I would like to point out to the Minister a difficulty which might arise and of which I do not think the Bill takes cognisance. The wife might die. What would become, then, of the married pension? A man might be totally disabled and have a large family. His wife might die and the married pension would disappear, as far as I know. At least, I think provision has not been made for that.

The 10/- will continue, as long as the man lives.

Let us get this clear. The Minister said that, in the case of a totally disabled man with five children and a wife, he would get a pension of 42/- plus 10/-, that is, 52/- a week. A year afterwards, the wife dies, and a few years afterwards the children are all over 18. The Minister informs us that that man, living to the ripe old age of 95, will continue to draw 52/- a week—or whatever the man's pension, plus the marriage allowance, amounts to.

The question that Senator Concannon asked was different. As long as the wife lives, the children will be receiving the complete amount of marriage allowance, whatever they were entitled to when the husband was alive, and nothing less than that.

The Minister seems to have completely misunderstood what Senator Concannon said. Her point was that a married man would get a pension, plus a married allowance. When the wife dies, what would happen about the married part of that pension?

As long as the husband is alive and the children are under the age, the 10/- would continue.

That is not what the Minister said a while ago. Will the Minister give us the reference to the appropriate clause in the Act which provides for that?

It is in the 1927 Act.

In this discussion, we refer sometimes to the 1923 Act and sometimes to the 1927 Act. There was a certain amount of fighting in this country up to 1923 and the Army was in a condition of actual belligerency. It is now in a state of contingent belligerency. The Minister has just shown his generosity in comparison with the 1927 Act, when the country was in a state of peace, and had been so for some years, and when it was hoped the country would continue in a state of peace indefinitely. If he had made a comparison with the 1923 Act, it would not appear that he had made so great an advance. Under the 1923 Act something like 43/- was provided for a man, plus 10/- marriage allowance. The Minister has chosen the less relevant analogy with the 1927 Act.

I am rather suspicious when anyone starts to talk about averages, as it seems to get away from reality. The amount of 42/- per man, disabled, may be satisfactory or it may not. The Minister said—and I want to see his point of view—that there is only a limited amount of money, which had to be used in the most equitable and provident way for the potential beneficiaries. We are told that only 25 per cent. of the men are married and that seems to simplify the difficulties. Totally disabled men are often able to embark on some activity which is quite remunerative. My own experience in life is that a man alone, able or disabled, can subsist and carry on pretty well on a comparatively small amount. Most normal men are prepared to accept hardships and restrictions for themselves. Much more vital and painful to them, however, is the thought that their circumstances have brought hardship and restrictions upon their children. Consequently, assuming that the Minister had a more or less fixed round sum to distribute and that it was a matter of equitable distribution, I think I would have tried to relate it, as far as possible, to the particular circumstances. In a Bill you cannot relate a thing to every individual coming up. A man who is unmarried gets 42/-, while another man with a wife and seven children gets 52/-. The second man's conditions of life are undoubtedly much worse than those of the first man, who gets 42/- and has nothing to do but provide for himself out of it.

I think the normal married man would not only fail to take his 42/- out of the 52/-, but would take much less so as to ensure that his children would be better provided for. I think that is the normal tendency. Consequently it seems to me that in drafting this Bill, it would have been better to reduce the amount given to the individual and then to have a pro rata arrangement with regard to various-sized families. The Minister has pointed out, I think, that the liability of the State extends only to children up to the age of 18. One could make an actuarial calculation of the number of children that might be drawing benefit at the rate of 4/- per week, and what is the assumed length of life of a soldier as compared with the assumed length of dependency of the children up to the age of 18. I think if the Minister were tied on the financial side he could have produced a more useful and more equitable Bill if he had reduced the basic amount given to the individual and had left the possible marriage allowance as it is, assuming the wife to have more or less the same expectation of life as her husband. With a comparatively small reduction in the single man's allowance he could have given 4/- per head for children. A reduction of 1/- or 2/- in the single man's allowance would have sufficed.

So far as I remember the Acts, children born after the liabilities are incurred by the State are not provided for. I admit that that arrangement would still leave quite a number of inequalities. It did happen that in 1940 particularly, we had a very strong recruiting campaign throughout the country, in which, without applying conscription, we urged upon all the young men of the country that it was their duty to join the Army. Normally a man joins the Army as a private and, if he is suitable, he may become an N.C.O. Another man of different education and of different circumstances goes in as a cadet and finally becomes an officer. As far as my observation goes, in the last couple of years the rule has been that all classes and all types, having had it urged upon them that it was their duty to join the Army, joined as privates. You have as privates, I think, men who are qualified barristers, solicitors, university students and many others who did not join what I might call the technical corps. I would have liked——

Is this discussion in order? Are we discussing the whole ramification of the Army or the recommendation before the House? Is it in order to refer to the whole constitution of the Army on this amendment?

I was only referring to it to show that I did not think that one could bring in a Bill that would cover exactly every class, but I do think that a Bill could have been brought in that, in a rough sort of way, might have adverted to the family liabilities of an injured man. I think that even if that necessitated a certain reduction in the amount given to single men, it would have been a proper arrangement both socially and from the point of view of family life. The feeling of the man in the Army who thinks that if he is injured he will get only £2 per week as against 42/- per week, is that it will not make any great difference. But the feeling of a man who thinks that if he is injured his wife and family will be committed to a restricted and denuded condition of life is much more serious. Therefore, I think, that if the Minister could not set aside a larger capital sum or an annual sum, if he cleared his mind of this fetish of averages and had thought of the reality of family life he could have made a much better arrangement. I, therefore, support the recommendation of Senator Hayes, even though it does mean an additional commitment on the part of the State. I do not think it would involve a very great additional commitment on the part of the State, and a little addition to the State liability might make an enormous difference to the happiness and well-being of the families of injured soldiers.

I have looked at the 1927 Act and I find that the Minister is correct, that there is a provision, a somewhat strange one to my mind, in the case of an officer he will get £30 per annum, as long as he has a son of 18, or a daughter of 21, even if his wife is dead. In the case of a soldier he is paid 26/- weekly in respect of a son up to 16 or a daughter up to 18. Therefore, there is definitely provision made for these cases. That really means in effect that, in the opinion of the State, 10/- is sufficient additional payment to provide for the wife and an unlimited number of children of a man who is disabled in the service of the State. I do not believe that any minor adjustment based on actuarial calculations such as Senator Fitzgerald has suggested, though it might be extremely interesting, would meet the actual position. Here we are in a world war and we are asking for all kinds of service in the Army and in other spheres. For those who render a semi-civilian service, we are adopting one scheme and for the Army another scheme such as is provided in this Bill. We are saying at this stage to the man who joined the Army from a sense of duty, as a great many did: "If you are married and have a wife and children, 10/- is the maximum extra allowance that we are prepared to give to you to support them if you are injured." It will be comparatively little consolation to him to say: "Should your wife die we will continue the same arrangement for the children." It will be no consolation to him because, in all probability, he will find it much harder still should he lose his wife to provide for his children on 10/-. I do not think we can honestly say that the rates here proposed for ordinary soldiers, for privates and others who have joined, is all that this State could afford, even if it were necessary for us to impose more taxes. I do not think these rates are on a scale which we could, on principle, approve or justify. I think the rate is low enough, goodness knows, but to say that we shall ignore the making of a sufficient provision for children is, to my mind, definitely wrong. The Minister keeps on saying that he is increasing the rate, but I think from my reading of it he is bringing it back to that of 1923. Even if he is increasing it, it is not adequate and is not carrying out the virtually implied pledge given to men who joined the Army for the present emergency. I support Senator Hayes' recommendation. I think it is the duty of the Seanad to send this recommendation back to the other House so that the matter may be reconsidered.

We should all like to see family allowances granted in this Bill, or in some other Bill, but apparently it is a case of cutting our coat according to the cloth. That, however, is not so much what brought me to my feet as the references of Senators Hayes and Douglas to the voluntary services. Senator Douglas referred to these as semi-civilian services, but, as a member of one of them, I can see no similarity between the service these people give and the service which those who have volunteered for the Army as a career, and who are paid during their period of service in the Army, give. All honour to those who have joined, but their status is entirely different from that of the members of civilian services who were provided for in the recent Order. I want to point out to the House that, although allowances were made in that Order for the children of a casualty in either of these civilian organisations, they are not comparable with a man serving in the Army as a whole-time profession.

Senator Hayes mentioned that the phrase here was much more definite. I think it is far less definite. Senator Fitzgerald stressed the point that the allowances should be recast, and that, instead of granting 52/- a week to a totally disabled married man, the amount should be graded down in respect of the personal allowance and up in respect of the dependent family. That might be all to the good, if it had been done, but I do not agree that we should hold up the Bill in order to recast these figures. If the Bill is held up, very important sections which we are all anxious to see passed will also be held up. In addition, we have already had a discussion in the House on family allowances in relation to the rural population. I voted for the motion on that occasion.

Apart from the recent Order relating to the voluntary organisations, the L.D.F. and A.R.P. organisations, this is the first occasion on which we have allowances for the regular Army. I think that the increasing of the amount from 26/- to 42/- and doubling the marriage allowance is a very generous provision. If any difficulties arise in relation to our not providing for dependent children, it is unfortunate, but, under the circumstances, the Bill should not be held up for the provision of family allowances when such provision has not been made in respect of people in ordinary occupations.

I think that 52/- a week for a disabled man, who possibly may still be able to get employment, is a very satisfactory allowance. If every person in employment in the country were able to get 52/- a week we would be in a much better position than we are in at present, not to speak of giving it to a married man from the Army, who, though qualifying as totally disabled, is still possibly capable of doing useful work outside.

I am, therefore, not in favour of the recommendation, even though we should all like to see the provision made, if the State finances were able to bear it. The point I want specially to stress is that I do not agree that there is a stronger case for the people who are in the Army as a profession than there is for those who give their time—and it is not always spare time, but time which they could usefully devote to their personal advantage—to the civilian organisations.

I found it very difficult to follow Senator O'Donovan. I do not know whether other Senators were able to disentangle his principles, or his supposed principles, and make sense of them, but, to begin with, he speaks of the people to whom this measure may apply as if they were people who had joined the Army for a career. The Senator ought to know that people to whom it will apply are those who have joined the Army for the period of the emergency. They joined the Army not for the purpose of entering on a career but because they believed the country wanted men to defend it, and, as Senator Fitzgerald was about to say when Senator Foran interrupted, they are men drawn from all walks of life. They are potential veterinary surgeons, lawyers, doctors, engineers—every type of man from the agricultural labourer and farmer's son to people who were going into the black-coat professions—and to speak of these people as if they had joined the Army for the purpose of taking up positions which were to be their way of life as long as they lived is, I think, displaying a complete misunderstanding of what the Bill purports to do.

Again, the Senator spoke of 52/- a week as being, in his estimation, a very comfortable remuneration for a disabled husband, his wife and possibly ten children. I am quite certain there are families as large as that in the Army, and that is the inference we have to draw from the Senator's interpretation of this amount of 52/- a week. I hope the House has, as I believe it has, a different point of view about what is equitable. I feel that the Senator has scarcely done himself justice in the matter. He made comparisons between the voluntary services which people in civilian occupations have joined, and the men in the Army, and he spoke of the man who could spend his time to his own advantage but who has joined the L.D.F. There is no doubt that there are thousands of men in the Army to-day who would probably be much better paid outside and whose prospects would be much brighter, had they not gone into the Army. I am quite certain that if we went back to the period 1916, 1918 or 1920, and called for volunteers, we should have going into the ranks as ordinary private soldiers some of those who are Ministers of the State to-day, and who are we to suggest that the ordinary fellows who compose the backbone of the Army are men who, given health and the opportunity to earn a livelihood, could not aspire to a higher payment per week than 52/-? I think we are burking the issue altogether.

Senator O'Donovan also referred to the fact that he voted for a scheme of family allowances for families in rural districts. We were not spending any money on that proposal and it was not too hard to vote for it. At that time, it was not costing the State anything. He went on to leave us under the impression that because we are not applying a scheme of family allowances to the families of the ordinary citizens of the State who are not in the armed services or forces of the country, such a scheme should not be applied to the men who are in the armed forces.

Now, I think we can take it that all Parties in the State have agreed or have committed themselves to the conception of life that a scheme of family allowances is desirable and that it should be put into effect at the earliest possible moment. That being so, would it not be a good thing to begin by applying such a scheme to the men serving in the armed forces of the State, the citizens in our midst who are the most deserving of such a scheme, and why, when the general principle is not being contested, should we oppose it in this case? I cannot understand that attitude. I cannot understand the point of view that agrees that the people who live back in the countryside to-day are entitled to a scheme of family allowances, while at the same time denying such a scheme to the men in the armed forces who have left behind them their homes, their parents and their families and who are prepared to take the risks that war will bring to the armed men if war should come.

I should like to have seen more freshness and more originality on the part of the Minister in dealing with this measure. I should like to see him break new ground. This seems to me to be a kind of weak copying of a scheme; a scheme that is partly one of family allowances, partly one for providing for children, and partly one of providing for childless married couples. I should prefer him to take his stand on the fundamental importance of family life in this State, taking that as his conception, and planning his legislation on the principle of making provision for the families of such people in this State so as to ensure that the children, at any rate, no matter how many there may be, will be properly fed, clothed and educated. It seems to me that the Minister disregards that, and I think that he is wrong in doing so.

Senator Hayes's recommendation only asks that a provision of 4/- per week per child shall be made. Well, he has not done any copying and, apparently, is not being anything like as generous as the people who gave to Great Britain the Beveridge Report, which would give 8/- a week for the children. I myself think that the money would be well spent nationally if the Minister were to decide to do this, and I believe that the niggardliness of his colleagues, if they be responsible, is doing us a national disservice.

I put it to the Minister on the last occasion—and I believe it—that the doctrine he is enunciating through this measure of his, denying to families sufficient sustenance for children when they are considerable in number, is in fact an incitement to the artificial limitation of families within the State. That is my opinion. I believe that is what it amounts to, so far as this measure is concerned, and I put it to the Minister now that if you carry on legislation on that plan, its influence will spread far and wide. I think it would be doing far better national work if we were to provide a scheme that would ensure that if there were five, six, seven, or even ten children in the families of our soldiers, the soldier should be assured that if he were disabled in the course of his duty his children would be provided for, and that he need not have any fear on that account. After all, these children would be the children of men. At any rate, there would be the making of good citizens in them, and they ought to be given the chance to grow up healthy and well educated, so that they could take their part as good citizens in the life of the community afterwards.

I think the Minister should re-examine the whole situation. Apparently, it is being urged upon us now that we should not hold up the Bill. Senator O'Donovan said that the Bill should not be held up because of the considerations that we are advancing here, but I suggest that these considerations are fundamental, and that they ought to be the basis upon which the Minister should found his Bill, and around which a considerable amount of legislation in the future could be framed. I think he should reconsider this measure and, if he were to do so, all of us would be much happier.

I have listened very attentively to Senators, and particularly to Senator Baxter, who has, as I might put it, traversed a lot of ground, but who has not said anything beyond what we are all agreed upon in relation to a general scheme of family allowances. One would imagine that the matter under discussion here, listening to the Senators who have spoken, is the principle of family allowances, but I am glad to see that we have new converts to that principle now, and I am also glad to note that Senator Foran has advanced from the point of view of his Party in that regard to the acceptance of that policy. When the matter was under discussion on the last occasion here, I think he informed us that the Trades Council had appointed a committee to examine it, but had not yet issued their report. We must assume, therefore, that in the meantime their report has been issued and that they have adopted this policy.

Senator Baxter accused the Minister of doing something terrible in not providing family allowances for the armed forces but, if I am correct, there is already in operation a scheme of family allowances in the Army. This, however, is only in relation to the case of a man who becomes disabled while in the services and who is no longer capable of carrying out the duties of a soldier, and in such case he is entitled to receive 50/- a week. Now, in regard to disability, a certain case was made here to-day about the fact that, in civilian life, those who have joined the voluntary armed services and who become disabled as a result of their service are entitled to family allowances, while the regular soldier is not, but if we are to take into consideration what would be regarded as 80 per cent. disablement in the regular Army compared with 80 per cent. disablement in the case of the ordinary civilian fighting man, we can understand the position. If a man is serving in the Army and contracts a disease or meets with an accident as a result of his service, and if his doctor certifies that he is 80 per cent. disabled, we can quite understand that man going into one of many fine occupations in the country, whereas the ordinary civilian, who has joined the voluntary Defence Forces, and who contracts a disease or meets with an accident as a result of his service, whose disablement would be certified by a member of the medical profession as 80 per cent. disablement, would be in an entirely different position. I think that that is where the great mistake is being made: comparing the family allowance scheme for those who have offered their services in the regular Army, on the one hand, with those civilians who have offered their services in the voluntary Defence Forces, on the other hand, and I believe that if we want to consider this matter of giving family allowances, it must be considered, not in relation to this Bill, but in relation to the country as a whole, and that it should be a matter for consideration when a proper scheme of family allowances for the whole country is devised and brought into operation.

I think Senator Hawkins has clarified this matter to some degree. The proposal contained in this recommendation is not a proposal for family allowances. Although the phrase is used sometimes, as Senator Hawkins has pointed out, not quite correctly, family allowances are generally meant to be a supplement to the earnings of the wage earner, who is in work, to help him to keep his family. This proposal is quite different. It is similar to the proposal in the case of the L.D.F., A.R.P., and so on, the purpose of which is to enable a man who is completely disabled as a result of his service to support his family. This is quite a different thing. I think it is not correct to describe it as being the same principle as that of family allowances generally. So much for that.

With regard to the description of men being in the present Army as careerists, I think that Senator O'Donovan is mistaken there. If you see ten soldiers—we ought not to mention particular aggregate figures— walking down O'Connell Street, I think it can be generally taken for granted that one of them is a regular soldier who has joined the Army as a career, while the other nine are in the Army as volunteers for the period of the emergency. I think the Minister will agree that, roughly speaking, that is the position. Nine out of ten soldiers are in the Army for the duration of the emergency and they can be put out on the cessation of the emergency, or they cannot be made to serve further than the termination of this emergency, as it is determined by law. Therefore, there is no comparison between the members of the present Army who are members of the regular Army and those who compose the L.D.F., the A.R.P. or the Red Cross services.

Only one soldier in every four is married and, therefore, the question of an allowance for the children of a totally disabled soldier would arise only in one-fourth of the total of disabled cases. The average family is less than three and, therefore, the allowance would have to be paid in a comparatively small number of cases. There would be cases where a married soldier would have no dependent children. Another point is that the allowance would cease to be paid when the children reached the age of 18 years. The proposal is to give a sum of money, not a very large sum, to totally disabled soldiers to help them to rear their children until those children reach the age of 18 years. That charge would gradually disappear; it would become smaller rather than greater, and for that reason it would not be a very important charge and, further, it is a charge that will eventually disappear.

With regard to the actual amount, I know there are some people not making 52/- a week, but, as far back as 1923, it was considered in the Parliament here that a totally disabled married soldier should get 52/-. Surely it would not be right or equitable or just, and it would not be making common sense, with the cost of living what it is, with the expenditure of the State what it is, and with the different outlook that we have, that we should now consider that for a man with a wife and seven children an amount exactly the same as was approved in 1923 would be sufficient. Surely there should be more granted, and how better could we give the extra amount needed than by making provision for the cases of families? There is no use in telling a man with seven children that the average family numbers three.

If we are going to make a beginning on the standard of agricultural labourers' wages, we should start in the Seanad; we should make a start from a different angle, and not on totally disabled soldiers. I suggest that the recommendation is reasonable and equitable, and, when we consider the provision made 20 years ago, I say that this is a very modest demand to make now. I think this House, which has succeeded in getting the Minister for Finance on two occasions entirely to recast his scheme—in one case in connection with the payment for damage to property, and, in the other, in relation to the payment of personal allowances to civilians injured by bombs or otherwise—should now, by passing this recommendation, ask to have this particular scheme reconsidered so as to make provision, not for family allowances, but to help the person who is totally disabled and who has children to support—to put him in a better position than his colleague who has no children. There can be no doubt as to the reasonableness of the proposal.

I do not suppose that Senator Douglas deliberately wanted to misrepresent the position when he said that 10/- was all we were allowing to the wife and children of a soldier. It is not correct to state that 10/- is the amount contributed towards the support of the wife and children of a soldier. The amount that is contributed for that purpose is 52/-. I do not suppose the Senator was anxious deliberately to misrepresent the position, but his statement was not correct.

I am sorry if my remarks conveyed a wrong impression. What I meant was that the view of the State was that 10/- was the additional amount with which a disabled man could support a wife and a certain number of children.

Senator Foran declared that 52/- was an inadequate amount. I am not going to suggest that it is an adequate amount, but Senator Foran must know that there are vast numbers of workers in this country earning much less than that and, so far as I am aware, Labour does not see anything wrong in it.

Well, if they do, they have not made themselves very vocal about it. I know that a labourer engaged in our greatest industry, the agricultural industry, is earning much less than 52/-.

Getting—not earning.

I could not say how many would be in the average family of an agricultural labourer, but what I have stated in regard to wages is the fact. Senator Fitzgerald has been dealing with hypothetical cases, cases which could exist only in certain circumstances. We are dealing with facts and when I helped to prepare this Bill, along with the people who are expert in the preparation of such documents, I know that we had to consider the fact that we have a marriage allowance arrangement in the Army and in that connection it is made very clear what the average family is. In preparing the Bill we had to consider that young fellows like the boys I mentioned the other day, the three young fellows who lost their sight and were graded 100 per cent. disabled, may, in the course of time, marry and probably rear families and naturally they will be entitled to the greater amount.

If I were to accept Senator Fitzgerald's theories, these men would be getting 26/- and that amount would last through their lifetime. They might be able to add to that by their own efforts and abilities. Here we are ensuring, through this Bill, that they will have 42/- as long as they live. I am satisfied that these young men may be able to add to that amount. When they reach old age, instead of having to rely on a 10/- pension, or even on the 26/- which Senator Fitzgerald seemed to suggest would be more equitable, they will have 42/- on which to support themselves and whoever may be dependent upon them. These are matters of which I had to take close cognisance.

Senator Baxter suggested that my policy, through the medium of this Bill, is to bring about family restriction. There, again, you have only to look at the figures in respect of married men in the Army. Married families in the Army, whether we like it or not, do not average more than three, in spite of the fact that we have in our Army the finest married allowance system provided by any State in the world. We are paying 7/- for the first child, 7/- for the second child, 3/6 for the third child, and 1/9, I think, for each child after. Surely, that system tends to encourage rather than restrict large families. On the arguments that Senator Baxter made, his case for the recommendation falls to the ground. I want to say again that this Bill, as it is before the House, is a good Bill. It is one that I can recommend to the House, and may I say that it need not be regarded as the final act of generosity, towards the soldier? If in the future this Government, or any Government that succeeds it, desires to make more generous provision, then there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it from doing that.

Before we dispose of the recommendation finally, may I add a word or two. I know the Minister's difficulty. I know that he is confronted —as all Ministers are—with a constant tussle with the Department of Finance. Some Ministers are able to get out of that better than others. Technically, of course, there is collective responsibility, so that every Minister has the same responsibility as the Minister for Finance. I have no desire to reduce the amount that, for example, will be paid to the men who, unfortunately, were blinded at the Glen of Imaal accident. When it took place they were engaged on what was practically active service, and it is nothing but the merest justice that they should get what was provided for similar cases under the 1923 Act. The real comparison is what was provided for men who had seen active service in 1923. The provision was 52/-. That is what the Minister is giving them. There is no use in the Minister telling us that there is anything generous in giving people in 1942 exactly the same amount that they would have got if they had, for example, been injured in 1922 or 1923 instead of 1942.

I do not want to take from the single man anything that the Minister proposes to give him, but I do think, if more thought had been given to this particular matter, especially in view of the comparatively small amount that is involved in the difference, it would have been better to recognise that a man who is totally disabled has difficulties which, so far from being an economic asset, very often make him a liability. With the possible exception of blindness cases, I think that the man who gets a certificate of 100 per cent. disability from a medical board is nearly always an economic liability to his family. In those cases where there are children, and where the Bill makes no allowance for the education of the children, what I am seeking in the recommendation—an allowance of 4/- per week in respect of each dependent child under 18—is, surely, a modest provision. It would make very little difference if the Minister were to agree to it. In fact, everything the Minister has said fortifies me in the view that the acceptance of the recommendation would make very little difference, and I think he might have accepted it. I am not for a moment questioning the Minister's bona fides or his desire to do justice by the single men, the married men or the children, but I think that the scheme suggested in the recommendation would be a more just scheme than the one outlined in the Bill, and would not, in the event, be much more costly.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 24.

  • Barniville, Henry L.
  • Baxter, Patrick F.
  • Butler, John.
  • Counihan, John J.
  • Crosbie, James.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Johnston, Joseph.
  • Lynch, Eamonn.
  • McGee, James T.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Tierney, Michael.

Níl

  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Byrne, Christopher M.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Farnan, Robert P.
  • Goulding, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Frederick.
  • Healy, Denis D.
  • Honan, Thomas V.
  • Johnston, James.
  • Kennedy, Margaret L.
  • Lynch, Peter T.
  • Magennis, William.
  • O Buachalla, Liam.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • O'Donovan, Seán.
  • O'Dwyer, Martin.
  • O Máille, Pádraic.
  • O'Neill, Laurence.
  • Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Stafford, Matthew.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Butler and Crosbie; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.
Question declared negatived.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Do I understand that every soldier who joined up during the period of the emergency and who is discharged as unfit during that period will be entitled to a minimum pension of 8/4 per week? Will a soldier who is discharged because of a condition of unfitness during this period of emergency be entitled to a pension of 8/4 a week?

Yes, if he goes before the Board and proves his disability——

Arises from service.

——is attributable to service.

It must be attributable to service. There is one other point on Section 3 (1) (b). Are there many soldiers or officers actually not what is called on the Army establishment, not on the strength? I understand there are very few.

I do not think there are.

There are cases.

I do not think so, but I am not giving that as final.

As the Bill is drafted, it could happen, for example, that a soldier or officer was married but not on the Army establishment, and if he were killed his wife would get nothing by way of compensation. If an L.D.F. man beside him, who was married, was killed, his wife would get compensation. I want to know if that is the position?

Yes, but I understand that in the case of an officer it is not necessary for him to be on the establishment for his widow and children to benefit.

That is in the case of an officer. But in the case of a man?

He must be on the married strength.

Are there many who are not? I do not want to get actual figures?

We do not know, because they marry in contravention of regulations and we do not hear about it. Soldiers before they reach the age of 23 may get married and not report the fact. We have no cognisance of it until, perhaps, the wife begins to feel the pinch and gets people to write or writes herself. Until such time as that we hear nothing about it. In that respect, I should point out that the age was 26, with five years' service. Recently we reduced that to 23 with two years' service. I think, therefore, in that respect it is a very great advance.

If a man who joined at 21 and married at 22 is killed, his wife gets no benefit? Is that correct?

No, if he was not on the married strength.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move recommendation No. 3:—

After sub-section (3), that a new sub-section be inserted as follows:—

(4) Part I of the Seventh Schedule to the Act of 1927 is hereby amended as follows:—

(a) by the deletion of the words "but not exceeding a total of £64 for children of any one officer" now contained in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3.

It seems to me that the case for this recommendation is an overwhelming one, and I do not want to delay very long on it. The Seventh Schedule of the Act of 1927 is concerned with allowances to dependents, and it is divided into two parts, Part I dealing with officers, and Part II dealing with soldiers. In both parts there is an identical provision. I am aiming at taking it out in both cases. The provision is that an allowance is given to the widow and to each child up to four, but not after four. For children under the age of 18, while the mother is living, there is £16 per annum for each child, but not exceeding a total of £64 per annum for children of any one officer. That is to say, if the officer has, in fact, more than four children, he only gets allowances for four. I presume that still is the law. That is the position under the present Bill. That was meant for a peace-time arrangement. I believe no such provision was made in the 1923 Act, which, to my mind, is the relevant and comparable Act to this, because it dealt with an emergency and a war period, and I think it is contrary to all our thought at the moment that if a man has more than four children, the fifth and sixth child should not be recognised.

You would not do that in your own home.

That is what it amounts to. I think there is no defence for that. That is as regards the principle. As regards the cost, the Minister has given us the figures. The average family is under three. The number of families, therefore, over four, must be comparatively small, I take it, and the amount of money involved in taking off this barrier and paying the amount—£16, or whatever it is—to all the children would appear to be very small indeed. I do not know if the Minister has made any calculation of the matter but, even without making a calculation, it is quite clear that it could be only a small amount and it seems to be in accordance with justice and reason. The case is the same really for officers and soldiers, but the first recommendation dealt with officers. I am not making any comment on the amounts in the Act of 1927 but the idea of stopping after the fourth child seems to me quite indefensible for this particular period.

I would like to stress that point. If an officer has only two children, he is paid only for two; if he has four, he is paid for four. It does seem to me that on the swings and the roundabouts there would be enough saved on families of less than four actually to cover the additional cost of families of more than four. With regard to the ratio, I just worked out a little rough calculation on this 42/- plus 10/- for a wife and 4/- per child. Take 100 men at 42/- a week, that would amount to £10,920—call it £11,000. If you take 25 per cent. of those as having 2.7 children paid at 4/- a week and call 2.7 times 4/- roughly 10/-, you will find, I think, that the cost per annum in relation to that 25 per cent. of men with the average number of children—some getting less and some getting more—would work out at about £650. Calling that £1,000 and giving what I may call the benefit of the doubt to the Government every time, not allowing for the fact that the liability for children will be for a strictly limited time, you will find that if you reduced the pension of the men now getting 42/- a week, that is to say, about £110 a year, to £100 a year you would more than pay all the additional cost of any number of children that an individual man may have, allowing that the average-sized family of a married officer is 2.7. It does seem to me that the thing would be better met—and with regard to this case the ratio will be about the same— if a single man, instead of getting £110 a year when disabled, should get £100 and that a man with ten children should get the 10/- for his wife and 4/- for each child. It does seem to me that that would be a much better arrangement from every human point of view. I stress the word human as distinct from the view indicated by averages. It would be much better to reduce the basic allowance given to the individual man, whether he be married or not married, and make provision for any number of children the man may have when we know that if we take the average it only works out at a certain number.

There again we are dealing with hypotheses.

Which is the hypothesis?

I mean, you are arguing in terms of something that may or may not exist.

I only argued on the terms the Minister gave of the average size of families.

The Senator may have been out of the House when I was mentioning the fact before. We are dealing with something that we know by very careful scrutiny is the actual position, as nearly as an actual position can be assessed. We know that there are families in the Army of more than three. There may be families of four; there may be families of five, six and seven. I do not know if they go any higher. There might possibly be some, as the Senator suggested, of ten.

It does not matter. I only took arbitrary figures.

We have in fact based our whole plan on what we know to be the actual position. I believe that if we were to adopt any other method than the one we have adopted we would, in fact, be saving money for the State. In fact, I want to say that I did this with, if you like, malice aforethought. I deliberately went out to see that whatever money we got would reach the men and that nothing whatever would be returnable to the State. I think that will be the position under this Bill. It is, perhaps, not a very desirable thing for a Minister to say, but I do not mind making the confession that I decided that, as far as I could provide, the total amount of money available would go into the pockets of the particular men for whom it was intended.

In respect to the recommendation which Senator Hayes has put down, I would say that the question of the widows' and orphans' allowances should be viewed in relation to the total amount payable and not in relation to the restrictive clause of four children, because the total amounts payable, including educational fees, to families consisting of a widow and four orphans of a deceased soldier, are something like this: up to and including the rank of captain, £244 a year; up to and including the rank of major, £274; and, in the case of a general, they run as high as £304. These are the figures that I think we should keep in mind. I think these are generous allowances.

The Minister does not quite meet my point. I have carefully abstained from any proposal to add to the financial burden on the State in the matter. The Minister names figures which I think are pretty good. I quite agree with him there, but I do not mind even if some money goes back to the State. I think it is a wrong principle to think of a sum of money and the whole of the Army. It is better always to relate the thing to individual circumstances, as far as you can do so legally. I would be quite prepared in the case of the individual man to reduce his allowance, and in the case of the individual widow to make such reductions as would allow the sum given in the individual case to be graduated to the number of children. If £254 is the present sum, say, for a widow with four children, reduce the amount allocated to the widow and, if she has four children, give her so much per head in relation to each child. If she has two children, give her the same amount per child; and if she has ten, give her the same amount per child.

What I am aiming at all the time is not to relate the thing to an abstraction which is the total Army with its averages but to work out a system whereby the thing will automatically relate itself to the family circumstances, that is, to the size of the family, in each case. The Minister names a sum and you may say that it is a very good sum. It may be a generous sum in relation to a woman with three children or in relation to a woman with four children and it may be as you might say unjustly generous when you compare it to the fact that a woman with ten children will get only the same amount as the woman with four children. The same argument applies to the other matter which we have already discussed. It means very little reduction in the basic sum per widow or per man to permit of an allowance for every individual child, no matter how many children. The Minister has told us that the average is only a certain number.

I should mention that there is no limit in respect of the educational grant. It can be given to any number.

I do not say that the Bill is not fair.

What I have said regarding the educational grant applies to officers.

Then the construction of paragraph 4 of Part I of the Seventh Schedule of the 1927 Act is that the cost of the education of any number of children may be met.

If an officer left a widow and six children, the widow would get £64—the amount allowed for four children—and an allowance of £30 each for the education of the six children?

There is no limit.

That is a much sounder point than the point the Minister made, that he was endeavouring to distribute all the money. I did not quite follow him in that. I think that he was dealing with an entirely different section. In the case of the widow with young children, she will tend again to be the widow of a junior officer, particularly in the case of men in the regular Army, and I see no reason for discontinuing the allowance after the fourth child. The number of widows who would have more than four children would be very small. That should be recognised. As in the previous case, this would be a decreasing charge. The State would pay for two extra children until they were 18. As they were 18, they would go off the pay roll. It is a foolish thing to try to fit into a frame things that are not capable of being so fitted. The argument that the cost of the education of all the children can be met by the State is an argument for making allowances for all the children. However, what the Minister has said has altered the position.

Question put and negatived.

I move recommendation No. 4:—

After sub-section (3), that a new sub-section be inserted as follows:—

(4) Part II of the Seventh Schedule to the Act of 1927 is hereby amended as follows:—

(a) by the deletion of the words "but not exceeding a total of 16/- per week for children of any one soldier" now contained in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2.

What has just been said with regard to recommendation No. 3, fortifies the case for recommendation No. 4. Recommendation No. 4 applies to Part II of the Seventh Schedule and this Schedule applies to the children of soldiers as distinct from the children of officers, who are provided for in Part I of the Seventh Schedule. The provision here is that the child gets 4/- a week but the widow can receive no more than 16/-. She is allowed only for four children. The argument is identical with that in the previous case, with this exception— that, in respect of this Schedule, there is no provision for education. Therefore, the injustice done to soldiers' children seems to be greater than that done to officers' children. The soldier's widow can receive payment for only four children. Her total income is 12/6 plus 16/—28/6. Considering that no educational facilities are provided for, that sum seems to be negligible. I should like to hear the Minister on the position.

Again, I should like to assure the Senator that his argument is not correct. Here, again, the pension is paid without limit. The Senator is, probably, not taking into consideration the widows' and orphans' pension, which is added to whatever the Army authorities pay. In fact, the widow and children of a soldier get the same amount of money as they would be receiving if the soldier were alive.

With widows' and orphans' pension added?

I know that there is provision by which payments under the National Health Insurance Scheme are made on behalf of soldiers. That, I presume, puts the widow in the position of what is called an employed contributor. She qualifies for the widows' and orphans' pension without regard to her other means. Does that mean that no regard is had even to State contributions?

Therefore, she gets the amount she would have been getting if her husband had lived?

With the full amount of the widows' and orphans' pension, and with the Army pension, the amount she receives is brought up to that which she would be receiving if she were in receipt of marriage allowance.

She gets 12/6 and 16/-, plus the widows' and orphans' pension?

She gets the whole of the widows' and orphans' pension and the Army pension brings the amount which she is receiving up to that which she would be receiving if her husband had lived.

She does not get the benefit of Part II of the Seventh Schedule?

And she may not.

If her husband was a private she gets the amount that he was receiving as a private, and if her husband was a sergeant-major she gets the amount that he was receiving as sergeant-major?

May I now put a hypothetical question to the Minister? It is possible that at the end of the emergency men who joined the Army and are officers may receive a certain gratuity. I am not saying that that will be done, but if it is and if the Minister is responsible at the time for the granting of the gratuities, will he see that the men who have received disability benefit will not be regarded as already provided for and excluded from the gratuity scheme?

That is a highly technical point which I am not prepared to answer now.

Question put and negatived.

I move recommendation No. 5:—

After sub-section (3), that a new sub-section be inserted as follows:—

(4) Part II of the Seventh Schedule to the Act of 1927 is hereby amended as follows:—

(a) by the addition at the end of the said Part of the following new paragraph:—

3. Each child of or over the age of 12 and under the age of 18.

Repayment of amount proved to have been in fact necessarily and properly expended in educational fees, but not exceeding £30 in any one calendar year, where evidence to the satisfaction of the Minister is produced that the child of a soldier would benefit by education of a more advanced nature than that provided in primary schools and would appear to have been deprived of such education owing to the death of his (or her) father.

To be quite frank this is a recommendation that the Minister might accept. There is a very remarkable difference between the provision made for the children of officers and the children of soldiers. I have copied the words in the recommendation from the 1923 Act. I am not asking that educational fees should be paid for any number of the children of deceased soldiers. I am only asking that fees should be paid "where evidence to the satisfaction of the Minister is produced that the child of a soldier would benefit by education of a more advanced nature than that provided in primary schools and would appear to have been deprived of such education owing to the death of his (or her) father". The great deprivation perhaps, from the material point of view, and indeed, possibly, from other points of view, of orphans is that a child who has talents and could have benefited by a better education than is available in primary schools is stopped short by the death of a parent. That was recognised in the Act of 1923. It is not recognised in this Bill. In the emergency we should go back to the 1923 Act.

Those who were familiar with what happened after the 1916 Rising will recollect that the most fruitful thing done by the National Aid Committee, the White Cross, and other organisations was the provision of educational facilities for the children of men who lost their lives in the struggle for independence. That provision should be inserted here. It is not one that would be very costly. It is not a provision to incur responsibility for the education of all soldiers' children but to make provision for the child of a soldier who has been promising, but whose educational career has been cut short by the fact that the bread-winner has disappeared, and that there is more economic pressure on the family than if the bread-winner had survived. We could be unanimous on this provision, even if it were costly. There is no reason for distinction between officers and soldiers at the present juncture in this or in any other country. It is now recognised that the highest educational facilities should be provided for all classes of the community. I am moving the recommendation in the hope that the Minister will agree to it or have something done about it.

This is a recommendation with which I have a lot of sympathy. I want to point out nevertheless that under the Acts of 1923 and 1927, in which such provision was made, only one person applied for the benefit of that particular amenity, and none have applied since the emergency started, so that there would not seem to me to be any likely demand from the private soldier or the non-commissioned officer for this amenity. However, I can promise the Senator, without accepting the recommendation, that with any case that comes before me—and I am sure that whoever succeeds me will have the same view— there will be power to deal extra-statutorily with it, and as generously as possible.

I suggest to the Minister that the circumstances might not be the same. We all hope that this country will not be invaded and that there will not be any further bombing or incidents of that kind. In dealing with a Bill like this we have in mind the possibility of a number of soldiers, who joined the Army for the emergency, being killed. We hope that will not happen, but I suggest that if it did, it would be found that the number who would apply, particularly if this provision was known of, would be very much larger in proportion than previously. It could not be more than 100. I wonder would the Minister have power to deal with more than 200 or 300 cases of that kind. I doubt if he could. I suggest that the House might pass the recommendation without asking the Minister to approve of it. To do so would not delay the Bill, as the Dáil will be meeting soon. It is possible that if the Bill went back to the Dáil with the recommendation, the Minister would get the Department of Finance to agree to it. Under the worst circumstances I cannot see more than a couple of hundred cases, possibly 300 or 400, arising, but a provision of this kind in the Bill might mean a great deal to children where a parent had joined the Army. I wonder if the Minister could deal administratively with more than one or two cases.

I could not guarantee that I would be able to deal in the manner I suggested if the numbers were large. I am satisfied that I would be able to deal with them if the numbers were within reasonable bounds. Basing my experience on what happened in the past, it does not look as if there would be anything like the numbers the Senator suggested. In the event of this country being involved in the war the circumstances would be completely different. This Bill might not be regarded as sufficient to meet the circumstances that would arise under such conditions. If it was a question of a number of people being in a position where it would be necessary to apply under the section, then we could very easily procure the means of dealing with them by legislation and by coming to this House for it. I do not want to interfere with the Bill in its present state, even though the delay might be only one of a few weeks. I want this Bill to go through and I can guarantee, as far as a reasonable number of people are concerned, that they will be dealt with in the way that Senator Hayes suggested. If large numbers are likely to be brought in as the result of any action that is not directly war, we could bring forward legislation to deal with it.

I appreciate the Minister's attitude. One of the difficulties is that if there is not some such provision people will not know of it and will not make application. There was only one application after the 1923 Act and none since. There could not be any since.

There could be for injuries and disablement.

The Minister's suggestion of dealing with such cases outside the statute means that he would make an ex gratia grant and put it on the Estimate.

Something of that kind.

I suggest that that is very remote now. When a great many people have joined the Army, if any were killed the orphans would suffer grave economic loss. I know that there would be sentimental loss for everybody. From the point of view of income, before the parent joined the Army the prospects of the child, if the father had survived, would be better. In our Army there is a number of people in the non-commissioned and ordinary ranks whose death would mean a serious loss to the children from the educational point of view. For that reason it would be better to have this provision inserted. From the economic point of view a different type of person is involved now. If the House accepts the recommendation it could be inserted to-morrow fortnight in the Dáil and the Minister would have his Bill right away. This recommendation would mean very little charge. It would solve the whole problem and would remove what I consider is a very serious disadvantage to certain people in the Army. Nobody deserves greater sympathy than a child who is promising, who had to leave school because the parent died. That is freely recognised in the country and in a good many cases the education of boys and girls whose parents had died was continued by the schools. I have known many cases of that kind. If the Minister accepts the recommendation he can easily have it inserted in the Dáil without delay.

I do not question the Minister's intentions. It is possible that knowledge of this provision will not appear in the newspapers and that the people affected would not hear of it. If somebody made application on behalf of orphans they would not be likely to refer back to the Seanad debates but to the Acts. If it appears that only a small number of children will be affected, there seems to be a good case for making provision for them now. As the Minister thinks that the numbers will be small I urge the Committee to send the recommendation back to the Dáil. I believe if it goes back as a recommendation the Minister will find that the Minister for Finance will be reasonable and will agree to it. I am almost certain he will, and that is the principal reason why I am pressing it.

I would urge the Minister to accept this recommendation now. He knows quite well that there is nothing harder for a Minister to do than to come back with a short amending Bill to deal with a limited number of people. It is very difficult. It takes a considerable amount of pressure to convince the Government that it is necessary to introduce a short Bill of that kind. In the meantime quite a number of those children may have missed their educational opportunities. A much safer course for the Minister to pursue would be to agree to have this recommendation inserted in the Bill as it stands. I am sure he would have no difficulty whatever in getting the other House to agree with it, and he would probably save himself or his successor a considerable amount of annoyance later on.

I regret that I cannot accept the recommendation, and I should like to pay tribute to the Seanad for the way it has facilitated me on many former occasions when I brought Bills in here. They were always very generous in their acceptance of the Bills I brought here, and I am sure that, if I should find it necessary to bring to this House a small amending Bill, the same generosity will be shown on that occasion. I can only assure the House again, that if there is not a very large number of those cases I will guarantee to have them dealt with as I have suggested.

The Minister's position is very clear, and we are all in agreement about this particular recommendation. The best thanks the Minister could give us for what he calls our generosity in the past would be to agree to this recommendation now. I think that is obvious. The best way in which he could show his appreciation of the generosity with which he said we treated him in the past would be by accepting this recommendation. We are dealing with soldiers; we are dealing with the children of soldiers who have been killed in defence of this country, and I think those children should have a legal right to the education of which their fathers' death deprived them. The Minister himself is in agreement about that. I prefer that the legal right should exist, both from the point of view that, as Senator Douglas said, it would be clear to everybody, and from the point of view that I prefer a legal right enshrined in an Act rather than an appeal to the Minister, in spite of the fact that I am sure the Minister would be as sympathetic as I or anybody else would be in regard to those particular cases. For that reason, I would urge that he should accept this recommendation. The Minister need not at all adopt the attitude, even in his own mind, that he has lost something by accepting a recommendation from this House. We have succeeded in persuading other Ministers to accept recommendations, and I think he would have no difficulty with the Minister for Finance or with the other House. It is not our fault that we only got this Bill last week, and we have behaved reasonably in expediting it. I think we should pass the recommendation and let it be incorporated in the Bill. It means only a difference of a fortnight altogether, and that is not a great difference when we consider that the Bill has already been held up for a long time. Where we are doing something just, and where we are in agreement, I think the best thing to do is to grasp the opportunity we have now rather than trust to bringing in another Bill.

The trouble I see about accepting the recommendation now is that it limits the amount to £30. That would not be very much good to children in the country who would have to be sent to boarding schools. Therefore, those children might perhaps fare better if we left things in the hands of the Minister. £30 would only be of use to children whose families live in a place where superior education is available.

I do not think there is anything in that point, because, if the Minister could give £30 or £40, he certainly could just as easily give an extra £20ex gratia.

Personally, I doubt very much if the Minister, making an ex gratia payment in regard to a non-commissioned rank, would feel justified in giving more than the law provides for officers. I think Senator Mrs. Concannon may assume that if, with legislation, the Minister will give only £30 in any case, without legislation he will never give more than £30. I do not think the Minister will hold out any hope of that.

There are a great many schools in the country, as I am sure Senator Mrs. Concannon knows, where you can get education for a child if you say: "I have only £30. What will you do about it?" I think you would go a long distance, in many cases. I know I could.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 22.

  • Baxter, Patrick F.
  • Butler, John.
  • Campbell, Seán P.
  • Counihan, John J.
  • Crosbie, James.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Eamonn.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Tunney, James.

Níl

  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Farnan, Robert P.
  • Goulding, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Frederick.
  • Healy, Denis D.
  • Honan, Thomas V.
  • Johnston, James.
  • Kennedy, Margaret L.
  • Lynch, Peter T.
  • Magennis, William.
  • O Buachalla, Liam.
  • O'Donovan, Seán.
  • O'Dwyer, Martin.
  • O'Máille, Pádraic.
  • O'Neill, Laurence.
  • Nic Phiarais, Maighráad M.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Stafford, Matthew.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Butler and Crosbie; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.
Question declared negatived.
Sections 5 to 11 inclusive and the Title agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

I want to express my regret that the Seanad did not agree with the principle that a soldier who is totally disabled should be assisted by getting an allowance for each dependent child and particularly that it did not agree with the last recommendation dealing with educational facilities. Perhaps now, Sir, on the basis of having the best of both worlds, I might suggest to the Minister that, although the House did not carry that particular recommendation, his belief in the principle of the recommendation will lead him favourably to consider any applications made to him on the basis of that principle—provided he is there. At any rate, we have from him an expression of the Departmental view that the matter is a reasonable one. To that extent, we have accomplished something in the debate on this Bill. The Bill, in one particular section dealing with 1916 men, does recognise the principle of an allowance for children; otherwise it does not. On the matter of educational facilities for soldiers' children, I hope the Minister will pursue the course with which he indicated to the House he was in sympathy.

In connection with the second recommendation, the Minister took exception to my remarks regarding allowances for children and mentioned the fact that the Labour Party, with which I am associated, were not very vocal on behalf of agricultural labourers. I do not want unduly to stress that point. I think it is unfortunate that the standard of living of a soldier and his family should be considered on the basis of the wages paid to what is admitted to be the lowest paid section of the community. I should be very sorry that that mentality should develop in Government circles. These people are underpaid and I think it is a very deplorable outlook on the part of the Minister to put the soldier, who has given of his best to the nation and thereby sacrificed his capacity to earn for his family, on the same basis as the very lowest paid section of the community.

I want to say that an opportunity arose in this Bill to initiate to some extent the provision of allowances for children. It was admitted that the marriage percentage in the Army was fairly low and that the number of children in soldiers' families was lower than would be desired by a progressive nation. If we hope to be regarded as a progressive nation, I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the earliest opportunity to remedy an obvious defect in this Bill—the omission of some allowance for children. If that were done I think it would make the Bill very much better than it is. As has already been emphasised here, all other nations in the world have moved away from the old ideas and have been prepared to do many things that they think worth while. One of the things most worth while, in our opinion, is to make provision to enable a man adequately to feed and nourish his children by making him a certain weekly allowance. I regret that the Minister could not see his way to accept the recommendation moved by Senator Hayes.

I think it was of great advantage that Senator Hayes should have the industry to put these recommendations on the Order Paper so as to enable Senator Foran and others of us to express our opinions on the various points involved in these recommendations. I think we would have been at a considerable disadvantage were it not for Senator Hayes's industry and I think that is a matter which should be noted. There is one point upon which I am not clear and upon which I should like some enlightenment from the Minister. It may be a small point. Senator Fitzgerald raised a question at one stage in regard to the Minister's power to grant a gratuity. I tried to get from the Minister an answer as to what would happen in the case of a soldier who is deemed medically unfit to continue in the Army and has to leave it and who afterwards, if he should appear before a board, would not show a condition of medical unfitness. Has the Minister any power to make any provision for that soldier by way of gratuity or has he to depend entirely on the point of view of the board in determining that his state of health is no longer such as to make him entitled to a pension? Is there any recognition for his service or for the fact that service in the Army rendered him medioally unfit to continue there, although on coming out he might be restored to health? I want to know whether the Minister has any power to give any token of the State's gratitude for his service or any recognition of the fact that service in the Army had, for a period at least, impaired his health?

There is no power granted in this Bill to enable the Minister to grant a gratuity. Every soldier who has to be medically boarded out will have the right to appear before the Army Pensions Board. If he can prove that he is suffering from a disease attributable to service he will be granted a pension commensurate with the amount of his disability. I should mention, in passing, that a very large number of the men who are boarded out of the Army as being medically unfit are, in fact, not medically unfit in the sense that a layman would regard a man as being medically unfit. A man may be suffering from tender feet. He is not able to continue doing the marching required of a soldier, or he may be suffering from some minor complaint which prevents him from bending, or something like that. That man would probably not be disabled to the extent of ten per cent., but, naturally, he would have hopes that he might come within the scope of the Bill. I cannot, of course, anticipate what the board will do, but I rather imagine that an Army Pensions Board which would contain medical personnel could not grant a pension to a man suffering from a disability of that kind.

Not due to his service.

Not attributable to his service, but to one of these natural complaints which he would develop if he were not in the Army at all. A large number of men were taken into the Army during the course of the emergency who would not be in any way acceptable for the regular Army in normal times. Their degree of fitness would not be sufficiently high, but because of some attributes—because they knew all about a rifle, how to work a machine gun, or knew how to train men—they were taken in and remained in the Army. Some of these men who would not be up to the standard I have mentioned, might, in the course of time, go out as medically unfit, and these men, in my opinion, would not be men who would be able to prove that they had disease to an extent sufficient to secure a pension.

And they will get nothing at all?

They would not get anything.

A gratuity or any other allowance?

The Minister has no power under previous Acts to give a gratuity?

There is no gratuity whatever allowable for disease under this scheme. If a man suffers disability attributable to service which entitles him to the award of a pension, he gets that pension which is more or less permanent. When I made reference to Senator Foran's remarks I was comparing the amount of 52/- with what the agricultural labourer is earning at present. I think Senator Foran will be prepared to admit that the agricultural wage is much in advance to-day of what it was several years ago, and it still does not reach the 52/- mark. I would be in full sympathy with Senator Foran, as I am sure would all my colleagues, in his efforts to increase that amount, but there are other aspects which would have to be examined. The farmers' expenses and the production given by the worker have to be taken into consideration, and these are very complex matters into which we cannot go here. I merely referred to the fact that a man coming within the scope of this Bill would get 52/-, which was comparable with what was being earned by large numbers of workers who had to support fairly large families.

The Minister mentioned that privates in the Army are compulsorily insured in respect of widows' and orphans' pensions. Does that apply to officers on the lower scales, up to, say, £250?

It applies to all officers.

Mr. Hayes

Only within certain income limits?

Up to £250.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share