Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1949

Vol. 37 No. 3

Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

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

Dr. O'Higgins

I expect that by this time all the members of the Seanad are just as familiar as I am with this particular Bill and its various points, controversial and otherwise. The main purpose of this Bill is to reopen or re-establish a court of appeal for people who were previously refused pensions. As the members of the House are aware, there were two Military Service Pensions Acts. There was the Act of 1924, which was confined to people who had active service pre-Truce and, in addition, had service in the National Army. Anybody who had not service in the National Army was precluded from that particular Act. In 1934 there was another Military Service Pensions Act which extended the right to apply for pensions to people who had pre-Truce service but had not necessarily service in the National Army. That 1934 Act gave the right to people who came within the terms of the 1924 Act to re-apply under the 1934 Act.

The next Act dealing with these particular matters came in 1945. Up to 1945 anyone, under either of the Acts, who had previously been rejected or had not previously applied but who satisfied the Minister that he had new evidence could get his case heard or reheard subject to the Minister's direction. Section 5 of the Act of 1945 closed the door, as far as the legislation of the time went, finally and firmly and gave nobody from that date any right to have his case either heard or reheard.

Following that Act of 1945 there was a considerable volume of discontent throughout the country. A great number of people felt that they had not got full justice under the Acts. Another considerable number of people, for political reasons of one kind or another, had not applied up to that particular date and then they found the door closed and the right to apply denied them. In addition, there was a great number of cases that went before the courts on the grounds that under the Act they had the right to appear personally before the Referee and they had not been granted that particular right. A great number of cases was before the court. Orders had been made in some hundreds of cases, but Orders had been made absolute only in a small number of cases. The 1945 Act was introduced and the right to appeal was given to those regarding whom the Order had been made absolute but ruled out those with reference to whom an Order had been made but had not been made absolute. The result was that the small number of cases where the Order had been made absolute had the right to appeal and to go further and, of those, one-third, on appeal, succeeded in getting a pension. The rest were ruled out by the Act of 1945.

In this Bill it is proposed to re-establish a tribunal similar in type but not in personnel to the previous tribunal and to give to anyone previously rejected or, under regulations, anyone who did not previously apply, the right to apply. This particular Bill does not propose to make those pensions retrospective, and a certain amount of artificial storm was created in Dáil Éireann on the grounds that it was an injustice to give a man the right to a pension for the rest of his life who has no right to a farthing a year at the present time. I could not subscribe to the idea that that is an injustice to the individual. As far as I understand the meaning of the word "justice" in the material or financial sense, it is to give to a man his legal rights and his full legal rights.

The legal right of those individuals at the present moment is nothing. The financial right of those individuals at the present moment is nothing a year. What I propose to do under this Bill is to give them an opportunity, if they can establish the fact that they had active service of the type described in the parent Acts, to get a pension for the rest of their lives. I cannot subscribe, or cannot be expected to subscribe, to the theory that that is doing an injustice to any man.

It may be asserted that, if I were to equate these people with others, retrospective payment should be made. If that claim is asserted then I am entitled to ask, retrospective payment to what particular date? There is nothing sacred about any particular date in the year 1934. There is nothing sacred about any particular date in the year 1924. If the assertion is that these people should get pensions retrospectively because of pre-Truce service, then there would be a certain amount of substance in the claim that they should get pensions back to the date of establishment of this State.

Precedents count for something. Under the 1924 Pensions Act, pensions were payable from the date of the passage of that Act and people to whom the 1924 Pensions Act applied were entitled to get their pensions payable from that date in 1924. That was their right until the Act of 1934 was introduced and, under the 1934 Act, continuing right was given to people under the 1924 Act to apply but to get their pensions only from the date of that Act of 1934. Retrospective application of pension was completely removed by the 1934 Act.

I think it is right that every Act should stand on its own legs from the day it grew those legs. The 1934 Act was not retrospective, even for 1924 Act people. In fact, it deprived the 1924 Act people of a pre-existing right, if they succeeded in getting a pension, to get it back to 1924. Then we had the 1934 Act, which gave pensions from the date of the 1934 Act. The 1945 Act then came along and closed the door finally and firmly on the 1934 Act and all the cases carried with it, and it left people from that date in 1945 with no legal claim to any pensions, whether retrospective or otherwise.

As a result of representations made and a great number of cases presented which appeared to me and to the Government to make a fair case for establishing a court of appeal, this Bill has been introduced. It was introduced without any retrospective effect, and if the demand for retrospective effect were linked up in this particular Bill, then, candidly, it would never be introduced. According to any estimate which my Department can arrive at, if this Bill were made retrospective, the lump sum of money which would have to be found to pay for making it retrospective would be something in the nature of £1,000,000, and, if a lump sum of £1,000,000 were attached to what we estimate will be an annual sum of £50,000 from the passing of this Bill onwards, candidly, the Government would not feel justified in introducing such a measure at all. That is putting all the cards on the table for the Seanad.

It may be argued that, if these people who succeed under this Bill had similar service to that of those who succeeded under the 1934 Act, the 1934 Act people having got their pensions from 1934, these people therefore should get them back to 1934. There is a case to be argued on that, but the answer is that the law as it stands at the moment found that these people had not a claim entitling them to pensions, or alternatively, that, if they had a claim, they had ten years in which to advance that claim, and, for purposes best known to themselves, did not do so during the ten years. The result is that, to meet the situation, I am proposing to re-establish a pensions board of the same type as before, to give everybody rejected or anybody who did not apply before the right to appear before it, if they satisfy the Referee that they have a case, and to have their cases heard, and, if they get a pension, to get it for the rest of their lives.

Under previous Bills, the right to appeal and the right of decision as to whether or not an appeal would be heard rested with the Minister, and it was the Minister who directed the board either to reopen or not reopen a case, where an appeal was made. At this stage, I think it is better to divorce or to separate the administration of these Acts as far as possible from any temporary political head of a Department. In this Bill, the Minister is completely cut out so far as the right to direct that an appeal be heard or not heard is concerned. The appeal will be directed to the legal Referee and it is he who will decide whether or not an appeal will be heard. The Minister will have no function in regard to it. Some Senators may consider that I have stressed this aspect of it unduly, but I do so because of the amount of time and attention which was directed to the retrospective aspect in Dáil Éireann.

There are a couple of other things in the Bill with which I think most people will agree. Heretofore, a pensioner automatically lost his pension for all time if he got a certain minimum sentence on conviction in the courts. A man in receipt of a pension of £50 a year might get a few months hard labour from the courts and might serve his full sentence under the court order, but lose, in addition, £50 a year for life. There was no power or right anywhere at any time to restore such a man's pension. Under this Bill, power is being given to the Minister, where an application is made, to restore a pension forfeited as a result of a court sentence.

The sister clause to that clause is that dealing with the refusal of the Minister to give a certificate. It is very much the same thing in another form. The Minister was prohibited from giving a certificate where a court sentence had previously been recorded. Under one of these labels, 14 people are deprived of their pension and 12 under the other. I do not know which is which, but it does not matter a a whole lot—there is a total of 26 forfeited pensions under one or other label, and this Bill proposes to give the Minister power to restore such a pension. The provision does not automatically restore a pension, but gives power to somebody to do so.

Mr. Hawkins

As the Minister has pointed out, we have had a few Bills dealing with this matter of pensions and we have also had various views expressed as to how the problem might have been approached at the start. Many years have passed since the justification for bringing in the first pension legislation arose, and much disagreement, dissatisfaction and unrest has existed throughout the country amongst people who gave service to the nation and who found that for one reason or another they did not come within the definitions in the legislation which provided pensions for certain services. I would trace the trouble back to the 1924 Act. I hold the view that, when the Parliament of that day decided that the men who made sacrifices for the freedom of the country should under certain circumstances receive compensation or reward for their services, these rewards should have been made to each and every person who came within the regulations, regardless of whether that person served in the National Army or not during the civil war period. If a broad view had been taken by the then Government of the persons who served in the National Forces during the 1916 and Black-and-Tan periods, if these persons had been treated alike, the period of the civil war being disregarded completely, we would not have had many of the troubles which we have had in relation to this matter ever since. We have had quite a large number of applications under both the 1924 and 1934 Acts. Figures given from time to time show that from 20,000 to 40,000 applications have been rejected or did not qualify to receive any compensation or pension under the regulations of the 1924 Act. Every one of these applicants hopes that under this Bill what the Minister terms "justice" will be done but by his statement in the Dáil the numbers who will receive a pension will be about 2,000 and the sum of money necessary will be £50,000 approximately.

The people to whom this Bill will apply are people who have already appeared before a Military Service Tribunal or Appeal Board more than once. They are persons whose applications have been considered, who have been given many an opportunity of producing new evidence to show that they were persons to whom the Act applied. If this Bill proposes to set up a board similar to that functioning practically since 1924, and these 40,000 people are to be asked again to come before the board and make new applications, the same thing will happen, and after these people have been put to the expense of coming before a board and making a case and after their hopes have been raised that they will now receive the compensation which they felt was due to them, they will once again find that they are deluded because the Minister estimates that the figure will be 2,000. That must be so unless the definition of military service is changed and given a much wider scope. The difficulty in the past, as I understand it, was that the Referee and the board gave a definition to "active service" and any persons whose activities did not come within this definition were termed persons to whom the Act did not apply. You must either change the regulation and give a new meaning to the term "active service" or put the same people under the same obligation of coming before a board only to receive the same answer at the end of two or three years. If it is to be changed, then in what way? I do not wish at this stage to give any outline of the injustices that we see up and down the country where people took part in an engagement, where one man in an outpost happened to come under fire and return fire whereas others who were equally engaged, because of the strict terms of the definition "active service" did not qualify. If you broaden the definition, while giving an opportunity to some of those 40,000 people who have already been refused, are you doing an injustice to some of the people who have been granted a pension of a certain amount? It is possible that their pension would be higher if the new definition of "active service" applied from the outset.

There are two types of persons who will come under this Bill, people who have already made applications and those who have not. There is another type of person whom I should like the Minister to consider and to whom, I am sure, he will be sympathetic; people who were not members of any of the armed forces or active participants in the fight for freedom but who were active members of the political organisations of that time and who did so much useful work in this country and many of whom suffered as great a loss and made as big a sacrifice as many of those who took up arms. The argument in favour of this Bill must be that it will remove what one might term injustice, the fact that because of the strict interpretation of "active service" a number of people have been deprived of what they thought they were entitled to. The Minister must be satisfied that there are a number of such persons who were entitled to receive some compensation for their services and because of the working of the particular Act under which they applied did not succeed. Surely they are entitled to a pension. If A was a member of a company of Volunteers during the period under review and his activities were of the same standard as B's and if A applied under the 1924 or 1934 Acts and qualified for a pension while his comrade did not succeed, surely that should be rectified. If the Minister does not accept that, there is no basis for the introduction of this Bill, I hold. This Bill has been introduced because an injustice has been done to B. If that is the case and we make provision for a pension for such a person, surely we must base it on the fact that he is entitled to get what his comrades got in the past——

Dr. O'Higgins

Under the Act of 1924.

Mr. Hawkins

Under the 1934 Act.

Dr. O'Higgins

Why not the 1924 Act?

Mr. Hawkins

If in his generosity the Minister is prepared to go back to 1924 I have no objection.

Dr. O'Higgins

Was that raised on the 1934 Act?

Mr. Hawkins

I have not the debates of 1934, but the 1934 Act was brought in because absolutely no provisions were made in the 1924 Act for persons other than those who had service in the 1920/21 period or in the National Army. Because a big proportion, if not a vast majority, of the people who took part in the fight for freedom were excluded under the terms of that Act it was necessary, if justice were to be done, to bring the 1934 Act.

Mr. M. Hayes

Does the Senator really believe that?

Mr. Hawkins

A number of persons have appeared before the board not alone once but to my own knowledge at least three times, but I will admit that from my own knowledge in quite a number of cases of people who failed to qualify under the 1934 Act the failure was due in the main to the fact that while a number of them had a really good case they were not persons competent to make the best case on their own behalf before the board. I know personally many of those whose record and service was on an equal footing with that of many who qualified, but they were not of the type best able to make their case. In such cases, the Minister might make arrangements, I suggest, to have them represented by a lawyer or someone in a better position than themselves to put the case before the board.

If we propose to remove an injustice now, we must remove it wholly and entirely. When these people satisfy the board that they are persons to whom the Bill applies, people who took part in securing the freedom we now enjoy and also, in many cases, in maintaining that freedom during the emergency, they are entitled to full justice and, even if it is a question of £1,000,000, the Minister should make the terms apply retrospectively in such cases.

Colonel Ryan

I am not in love with this Bill at all. These pensions have been a cause of controversy, jealousy and hatred throughout the country. Some people may have been dependent on pensions, but they did not do a lot of good. The 1924 Act was very restricted and was confined, with a vengeance, to people with certain active service. There were some disgruntled, and rightly so—especially those who did great things but may not have been in the proper places, because they were given some other orders, and so were deprived of a pension, having told the truth and having said they were not in those places. Later, under the 1934 Act, where did we get all the active volunteers we had before 1920? Judging by the number of pensions, I cannot account for them all.

One of the reasons why I am glad this Bill has been brought in is that I am satisfied it may do justice to some persons here and there who did not get justice so far. I am not saying that was the fault of the Government then or of the Referee, but I am satisfied that there were serious injustices. I happened to be a battalion officer in one country and happened to come before the board to give direct evidence on behalf of certain people. That was not happening previously. I feel some political pull was behind the ramp of the pensions afterwards. I hate the idea of these pensions, or having to go before a board to give evidence on behalf of anybody. Perhaps it would have been better if there never were any pensions. Everyone was getting a pension—I was opposed to it the first day, though I was glad I got a pension. I know men who did not apply under the 1924 Act but who applied under the 1934 Act. I went to the Minister and to some of the biggest men on the other side of the House, but the applications would not be accepted, because the 1924 Act applied to them. At least, under this Bill, justice will be done. We had some of the best girls in the country, but under the 1924 Act their applications could not be accepted. Under the 1934 Act they got no pension, while others with only a tenth of the service got a good pension. Some women to whom the 1924 Act applied, but who applied only under the 1934 Act, got only a quarter of the pension that was given to some members of the same battalion or company.

Only that it would stir up another hornets' nest and give rise to a lot of trouble, I would like to see the whole pensions question reviewed from top to bottom. Then we would know where we stand. Everyone would be brought in on oath face to face and we would know how the pensions were awarded.

I think Senator Hawkins has been opposing this just for the purpose of opposing it. He knows very well that there are people who did not get fair play under every Pensions Act, but especially under the 1945 Act, regardless of whether they were called once or twice. I hope the basis of the board the next time will be different and that their work will be done in a different way. I hope those giving evidence on behalf of applicants will be brought face to face with each other before the board. Then there will be less underhand work than there has been. I hope the evidence will be accepted on people's oath and not on the forms filled in by somebody in the country, saying that So-and-so served under him and did certain things. I could quote cases under the 1934 Act, where a battallion commandant happened to be in the area—he was well-known to some leaders on the other side—and said: "Yes, you have got higher service but when you get it I must get so much as well." That is common property throughout the country and not hearsay. The man was very near to me and close to me and I could mention the names.

I welcome this Bill. Regarding its being restrospective, I cannot understand the mentality of those who said it should be retrospective. Why was the 1934 Act not retrospective? Why did those opposite not think then of making it retrospective? They feel that way about it now, when they are not in power. Some people will be delighted about this Bill, but very few are hungry or very badly off. If they never got a pension, they would do just as well without it.

The question of definition has been mentioned. It was hard to know what "service" was under the last board, as the term was most elastic. I hope that the Minister will leave it elastic and leave that technical side of it to the board to decide.

There are men who have given great service. I know one man who was the best man in his company area. He did not happen to attack a policeman or a police barracks or military but he did more dangerous work. This man did not care whether he got a pension or not. He was turned down because he told the tribunal that he had not taken part in an attack on a policeman or military. He told them that he was doing a particular job which was much more dangerous and much more ugly. I hope that sort of service will count for pension purposes. I do not want every Tom, Dick and Harry who formed fours in the Volunteers and who just turned out now and again, to get a pension. The definition of service ought to be elastic and the Minister ought to discuss that matter with the Referee.

I would suggest to the Minister that the board should sit in various areas throughout the country. There may not be a tremendous number of applications and it would be cheaper to the Exchequer and more convenient for everybody concerned if the board were to sit in various areas. The country should be zoned for this purpose. There are many applicants who would have to borrow or beg their way to Dublin and then they would have to bear the expense of staying in Dublin. I do not mean that the board should sit in every town but that they should choose centres to which the applicants could come. I do not like the idea of the board sitting in Dublin and bringing everyone from Cork or Donegal to Dublin. I expect that half of the applicants will not get a pension. Therefore, it would be cheaper, easier and more satisfactory if the board were to sit in local areas.

Mr. Colgan

Senator Anthony raised a question on another Bill as to whether that would be the last Bill. Many of us thought he had in mind this particular Bill. Many of us would like to know if this is to be the last Bill.

The Minister stated that the Bill was introduced to remove certain grievances. If the Minister thinks that the introduction of this Bill will remove these grievances I suggest that he is a very optimistic man. Senator Hawkins put his finger on the problem in connection with these people who have been turned down. It is a question of the definition of service. Every man who was a member of the I.R.A. pre-1921 belives that he had service. Some people were more fortunate, or unfortunate, than others who did more spectacular work and were in a position to get pensions.

I got a pension under the 1924 Act and I will give my experience of how active service was construed. I went out on the Monday and was out continuously until Sunday evening, when the great majority of us got away without being arrested. Because I was not arrested, I lost a year's service for pension purposes although, during the period that the majority of the men were in Frongoch or other internment camps I took part in the re-formation of the I.R.B. I was allowed a year for 1918 but was not allowed for the period prior to the Truce. Senator Colonel Ryan mentioned a case of a man who was on dangerous work. I was on more onerous, more dangerous work than active service as it was known in the City of Dublin but I was not allowed for that period. I suggest to the Minister that this will be a case of sending the fool further unless there is some authoritative statement made as to what constitutes active service. That is not going to be easy. I appreciate that. Senator Hawkins mentioned the case of the outpost who was fired on and returned the fire. The rest of them had not got active service and pension may be disallowed. I think we will have to be honest and tell the large majority of the claimants that they are not entitled to any pension unless they have certain defined service. I know people who claimed under the 1924 Act and under the 1934 Act, possibly under the 1945 Act and who probably will claim under this Bill, who have no hope of getting pensions. It is all very well for people in the city who can take a bus ride to Griffith Barracks and make a case but it is not fair to people in remote parts who will go to the expense, which in many cases they cannot afford, of coming before a board when their case is damned from the very start.

There is another difficulty. It is almost 30 years since the Truce and it is not easy to recollect everything that happened or that was supposed to happen and it is not easy to get people to verify statements. I remember a particular case under the 1934 Act where a man had to depend on a particular individual to verify that he had active service. That person was opposed to the system of pensions.

He would not apply for one and he refused to be a witness for anyone else. The whole thing bristles with difficulties. I suggest that some attempt should be made to disillusion many of these people who may feel they are going to get pensions under this Bill but who will not get them unless there is some authoritative statement as to what constitutes active service. Many unfortunate people will apply again under this Bill and they have no hope whatever of getting past the chairman of the tribunal, whoever he may be, because they have not what is considered active service.

A large majority of these people believe that membership of the I.R.A. or the Volunteers and being prepared to do anything they were asked to do entitles them to a pension. Possibly they were not asked to do much but that might not have been their fault. I am satisfied that unless there is some definition of active service these people will never get a pension.

Mr. Loughman

I want to refer briefly to a few remarks made by Senator Colonel Ryan. His idea seems to be that this Bill is introduced in order that 2,000 people who are political opponents of the late Government will get pensions.

Colonel Ryan

I do not think I made any reference to that whatever. I did say that some people who had not got fair play under these other Acts ought to get it under this.

Mr. Loughman

The Senator mentioned that people were victimised for their political opinions. I take it that when he made that statement he had in mind that these political victims were now going to be compensated. I feel I am fully justified in taking it, since he did not clarify the statement, that the 2,000 to whom the Minister refers are 2,000 political opponents of Fianna Fáil. He, Senator Ryan, made another statement, that a number of the women in the county he knows were refused pensions also under the 1934 Act because of their political opinions and he stated that he could quote cases. If I wished, I could also quote cases and perhaps Senator Colonel Ryan might not be too happy about that either. I am satisfied with anything the Minister does which will improve the lot of the people who fought for the Republic, when it was not very fashionable, but I should be very happy if he could extend it very much further than he is extending it. I was never one to make any apology to the people for compensating those who gave service in the old days, and, as the Minister is going to do some little extra for these Old I.R.A. men, I am very happy. I deplore, however, the attack made by Senator Ryan on the board when he suggested that they were influenced by politics, that they were influenced in their decisions by the politics of the applicant. That was a deplorable statement by a Senator who should have some sense of responsibility.

Mr. Ruane

I confess that I never felt very happy about the pension system from the very earliest days, or never approved of it, because I felt that there were other and better ways by which those who took part in the fight for independence might be given credit for the very patriotic work they did. I believe that in many cases the pensions paid to people who took a praiseworthy and honourable part in that fight are of little use to them. They are paid in small amounts from time to time, and especially in view of the present value of the £, they are not of much benefit to those who justly deserve them.

My point is that if in the early stages some other means were adopted of compensating these men for the service they rendered to the country—by way of ex gratia or supplementary grants, which would help to make up the losses which quite a big number of them suffered in their businesses or callings in life—it would have been much better. That stage, however, is past. I am sorry that my idea—it was the idea of many people at the time— in this connection was not adopted. Had it been adopted, I believe that the difficulties which now present themselves to many people who are ap- proached by those who feel they have bona fide cases for consideration would not exist for it is quite possible that the number would not be so great and memories would be better if the cases could have been considered nearer the period of active service. However, as I say, that stage has gone and the system of pensions has been adopted.

Under that system, some people have been treated fairly well, but there are many I know myself who took part in the fight for independence who have not received the same consideration as has been extended to their comrades. In so far as this measure tends to remedy that state of affairs, I congratulate the Minister on introducing it. I believe that the cases which will come before this new tribunal will be fairly and charitably considered. Rightly or wrongly, there have been complaints against certain members of boards set up to investigate claims for pensions and certain verifying officers had not got the confidence of many people who went before them. Statements are made—I do not know with what amount of truth—that, whereas applicants in some cases got away very easily, those who really had good claims were turned down. I hope that, in administering this measure, the Minister will keep before his mind the necessity of restoring confidence in the constitution of the boards—in having a board which will have the confidence of the people who have to appear before it to present their claims. I agree with Senator Ryan's appeal that whatever body is onerated with the investigation of these claims should be a body empowered to travel from centre to centre, so that claimants will not be put to the trouble, expense and inconvenience of travelling to Dublin to have their claims investigated. I feel that where it does happen that these new applicants succeed in establishing their right to pensions, some of them would be far happier if a lump sum were paid instead of smaller amounts paid periodically.

Mrs. Concannon

The Minister has shown himself to be a man of courage in introducing this Bill which bristles with difficulties, but I think we must all be grateful to him for trying at least to solve some of the difficulties. I should like to begin my remarks on a more cheerful note than that which has pervaded the speeches we have listened to. I am very glad this Bill has been introduced. I hope it will remedy many of the injustices, many of the hardships, which, as other speakers have pointed out, have been created by the extraordinary definition of "active service" on which the previous boards operated.

I am particularly interested in one case, the case of a man who was on active service from 1918. During the height of the Black and Tan war he was ordered by his commanding officer to remain in the neighbourhood, which he knew very well, and in which he was acting as intelligence officer. This man made possible the capture of a great quantity of ammunition, which was subsequently used in one of the most important ambushes in the West. During part of the period, that ammunition was stored in his father's place of business. The premises were raided and he was taken out by the Black and Tans and beaten almost to a pulp in an effort to get him to disclose where the ammunition was kept. He recovered from that beating and was ordered to carry on as company commander in his own district. In that capacity, he did great work, about which everybody knows. That man applied for a pension and was turned down because to be beaten up by Black and Tans does not apparently constitute active service. His father's place was eventually burned down and he himself has suffered for years from the treatment he received. He has to attend the doctor to the present day. His health has been undermined and he suffers from amnesia. He sometimes forgets things and so, before the board, was not able to make a very good case for himself. I agree with the suggestion made by Senator Hawkins that people who find difficulty in making a case for themselves should have the benefit of legal assistance.

I think that if that man's case had been properly presented, consideration would have been given to the fact that his physical condition is bad at the present time and that his father's house was burned and he was left very poor, but he was debarred from the benefits of the Acts because he did not take part in an ambush, although it could be proved that he made an ambush possible. His service, however, was not defined as active service and I agree with the speakers who said that this court should go on circuit. This man was put to great expense in coming to Dublin and there is no reason why he should not have his application heard at home, in the friendlier atmosphere of his own town, where he could make a better case than he made on the previous occasion when he was sick.

I would like the Minister to accept the suggestions of Senator Ruane and the other Senators on the question of the court going on circuit and I would also be glad if the Minister would tell us the procedure that is proposed in the cases of those men who have already been before boards. Have they to give evidence again or make new applications with details of the evidence or will the written evidence they have already given be available? Once more, I want to thank the Minister for introducing this Bill.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Do mhínigh an Seanadóir Bean Uí Choincheanainn don Aire an príomh-phointe a bhí ar intinn agam agus sé an pointe sin an chaoi a cuirfear na hachainíocha nó "appeals" os comhair an Bhoird nua. Do réir mar atá an Bille ceaptha, go háirithe Alt 11, thuigfeá uaidh go gcaithfidh duine iarratas nua a chur isteach. B'fhéidir gur maith an rud é sin go gcuirfeá an onus ar na daoine a cheapas go bhfuil ceart acu ar phinsin iarratais a chur isteach ach is dóigh liom gurbé an rud ba cheart don Aire a dhéanamh sa chéad áit ná míniú éigin a thabhairt go poiblí ar céard a chiallaíonn “active service,” ionas go mbeidh fhios ag duine céard díreach a chiallaíonn sé agus ionas go mbeidh sé i ndon a shochrú dhó féin an fiú dhó nó an ceart dó iarratas a chur isteach. Tá a fhios agam, mar a míníodh sa Dáil agus mar a mhínigh an tAire, go bhfuil sé an-deacair, agus b'fhéidir dainséarach, sainmhíniú cruinn glan ar “active service” a chur síos ach ba cheart go mbeadh tuairim éigin againn ar céard atá ar intinn againn maidir leis an téarma. Ba cheart go mbeadh an réititheoir nua agus an bord nua a bheas ag obair i ndon a rá go réasúnta beacht roimh ré céard leis a mbeidís ag súil mar cháilíocht le haghaidh teastais ar “active service.” Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an tAire machnamh air sin.

An dara rud ba mhaith liom a dhéanfadh sé, sé sin, gach duine a bhfuil iarratas curtha isteach aige go scríobhfadh sé chuige á rá go bhfuil Acht nua rite, go bhfuiltear ag glacadh leis an iarratas atá ann cheana agus má tá ar a chumas ansin aon bhreisfhianaise a chur isteach é sin a dhéanamh. Ba mhaith liom, agus sílim gur ceart é, gach aon duine a bhfuil iarratas curtha isteach aige cheana féin go nglacfaí leis an iarratas sin mar iarratas faoin mBille seo. Ba mhaith liom freisin an cheist seo— agus is ceist ríasúnta i—a chur: cén chaoi ar tharla faoi Acht 1934 gur chuir an oiread sin daoine iarratas isteach ar phinsin. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé ceart beag ná mór a rá gur chuir daoine isteach ar phinsin agus gan iad á chreidiúint go láidir go raibh ceart acu chuige. B'fhéidir go bhfaighfeá roinnt daoine ar fud na tíre a thógfadh an seans ar rud d'fháil go héagórach, go mí-cheart, ach creidimse féin gur chreid na mílte móra daoine a chuir isteach ar phinsean go raibh an ceart acu air. Tá aithne agam fhéin ar dhaoine a thug seirbhís an-tábhachtach in aimsir na trioblóide agus a chreid go raibh an ceart acu chun pinsin agus a chuir iarratas isteach á iarraidh. Mar shampla, tá aithne agam ar dhaoine a bhí sna hÓglaigh. Tréineáladh iad mar shaighdiúirí agus tugadh airm tine dóibh. Bhí orthu a bheith cúramach leis na hairm sin. Bhí orthu teacht ar pharáid lena gcuid airm agus piléar agus éidí cogaidh. Bhí orthu dul amach ar gharda agus ar diúité go mion minic. Bhí orthu airm d'iompar agus dul i gcontúirt. Bhí orthu teacht ar diúité le súil go mbeadh orthu na hairm tine sin d'úsaid, ach pé ar bith fáth a bhí leis ní raibh aon ghá urchar a scaoileadh mar nach raibh aon luíochán ann. Ach ní orthu a bhí an milleán. Bhíodar i gcontúirt. An bhféadfaí a rá nach "active service" a bhí ag na daoine sin? Ní dóigh liom go bhféadfaí. Más féidir leo a chruthú go rabhdar sna hÓglaigh, gur iompair siad airm agus go rabhdar i gcontúirt am i ndiaidh ama, ba cheart go dtabharfaí "active service" air sin. B'fhéidir go ndéarfadh duine eigin nach ceart pinsin a thabhairt do na daoine sin ach sin rud eile.

Tá fhios agam samplaí eile. Tá aithne agam ar fhear a bhi ina oifigeach ar na hÓglaigh. Réitigh sé féin go mbeadh luíochán ann. Bhí deartháir an oifigigh ar diúité, an lá céanna agus bhí seisean síos an bóthar ón ionad ina raibh an t-oifigeach ós cionn an bheartais. Tháinig na póilíní agus scaoileadh fúthú. Níor éirigh leis na póilíní a theacht go dtí an príomh-ionad, an áit ina raibh an t-oifigeach. Chúlaigh siad. Theicheadar. Chuir an t-oifigeach agus a dheartháir iarratas isteach ar phinsean. Fuair an deartháir é ach dúradh nach raibh an ceart ag an bhfear a réitigh an beartas, a bhí freagarthach ann, a bheadh i lár an chatha dá mba ghá é, pinsean a fháil. An éagóir é sin ar an duine sin? Ní maith liom an focal sin d'úsáid. Ba cheart dúinn maidir leis an mBille seo an focal "éagóir" nó "injustice" a chaitheamh as frí chéile. Duine ar bith a tháinig ag iarraidh pinsin faoi na hAchta eile, fuair siad an rud a dtugaimid "justice" air. Má bhí locht ar aon rud is ar an dlí a bhí an locht. Má táimid ag iarraidh go bhfaigheadh daoine feasta cothram na Féinne ba cheart dúinn misneach a bheith againn—agus tá misneach ag an Aire, mar adúirt an Seanadóir Coincheanainn—go ceart iomlán agus fógairt don phobal i gcoitinne céard díreach atá ar intinn againn maidir leis an téarma "active service." Tar éis dúinn a bheith ag cuimhneamh ar an scéal chomh fada is atáimid—ar feadh na mblian—is é an rud is lú is gann dúinn a dhéanamh anois an téarma "active service" a leathnú. Tá fhios agam na deacrachta a bheas leis. Tá fhios agam an bille a bheas le seasamh ag an Stát, ach na daoine a thug seirbhís sna blianta atá caite ba dheacair an tseirbhís a luacháil i riocht airgid. Má tá na tuairimí chomh láidir gur cheart an téarma "active service" a leathnú—agus taispeánadh sa Dáil agus sa tSeanad go rabhdar—sílim gur cheart don Aire, in ainneoin na ndeacrachtaí dó féin agus don Stát, géilleadh don oiread sin de mhuintir an Oireachtais.

Is trua liom nach bhfuil an Seanadóir Hearne anseo mar sílim go raibh smaointe aige ar an mBille seo gur bhfiú iad a cloisteáil. Dúirt sé liom inniu gur cheart dúinn i gcásanna áirithe feidhm a bhaint as Ciste Sinn Féin le freastal ar dhaoine atá i gcruachás go fírinneach agus ar an gcúntar seo nó an cúntar siúd nach féidir leo pinsean fháil faoi na hAchta eile. Bhí an cheist seo ann chomh maith nuair a bhí Bille Sinn Féin ós comhair an tSeanaid. Mholfainn don Aire an cheist seo a scrúdú agus féachaint an bhféadfadh sé teacht ar seift nó réiteach leis an Ciste a chur ar fáil le fóirithint éigin a thabhairt do dhaoine atá ina chall agus nach féidir leo pinsean fháil.

Cé go raibh an Seanadóir Ó hEacháin agus an Seanadóir Ó Colgáin ag taispeáint, mar ba dhóigh leo, go raibh laige sa mBille, ní hionann é sin is a rá go bhfuilimid ina choinne. Nílimid i gcoinne an Bhille beag ná mór. Is maith linn an Bille a bheith ann agus is maith linn é bheith chomh maith agus atá sé, cé gur mhaith linn é a bheith níos fearr. Muran féidir é bheith níos fearr, ní bheidh an milleán orainne, ach ná ceapadh éinne go bhfuilimid ina choinne. Déanfaidh sé maitheas agus tabharfaidh sé sásamh do dhream áirithe ach mar adúirt an Seanadóir Ó hEacháin agus an Seanadóir Ó Colgáin, ná ceapadh an tAire go gcuirfidh an Bille seo mar atá sé deireadh leis an easaontas atá ann maidir leis an scéal seo ar fad.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I did not intend to intervene in the debate were it not for the fact that I heard the Minister state that as far as the retrospective clause was concerned the door was closed. I have got letters from various branches of the Old I.R.A. including Treaty and anti-Treaty men and they have asked me to plead and plead strongly with the Minister to reconsider that. We could understand the Minister finding it hard to face up to the financial implications to the State if he considered making it retrospective to 1934 or 1924. I wonder would he consider, in the case of men who will get pensions, making a percentage of the award retrospective. I do not think it would be a huge amount if the Minister went before the Government and pleaded with them at the eleventh hour to consider the possibility of making 20 or 25 per cent. retrospective.

I do not think, to be honest, that they really expected the whole amount to be paid retrospectively to 1924 or 1934, but there is a good deal of unrest in the country at present and bitterness might arise because of decisions in the past. I know, on the other hand, that the Minister would like to be as generous as possible because he has a generous mentality, and I would like to make an appeal to him to act on the lines I have suggested because the amount of money involved is not huge and something can be done about it. I do not propose to say any more, but I am sure that if the Minister acts on the lines I have indicated he will have the gratitude of every Old I.R.A. man throughout the country.

Mr. Honan

I wish to register only a personal view on this Bill. I was opposed to all pensions and so were all the older members of the I.R.A. When pensions were first suggested you would insult anybody by suggesting to them that they went out with the intention of getting pensions or any other kind of award, when all they wanted to do was to do something for the freedom of their country. In 1924 a Pensions Act was enacted and that probably weakened the determination of many of them and the weakening was helped because of the depression that came in from 1928 to 1936. But, even at that time, when the pensions proposal was put up to the Árd Fheis of Fianna Fáil in the Mansion House on two occasions, it was turned down on both occasions by overwhelming majorities. It came along then to 1934 when things were really bad, and you went around and heard people saying that it was an extraordinary thing that one set of fellows, who believed they did more for the country than another set of fellows, could not go to a hurling match or have a packet of cigarettes while their neighbouring boys who joined the National Army had all those amenities. The majority view was that those who suffered a disability should get a pension but in the end they all gave in. Those pensions were very demoralising for the Old I.R.A. Most of the members of the Old I.R.A. never wanted them and never looked for them, and suffered, in the moral aspect at any rate, when pensions were pressed on them. Then the process went on bit by bit and there was jealousy among people who felt that they should get as much as the fellow next door or felt a grievance when they got nothing. The situation had gone so far that these feelings had been aroused and if there is anyone to whom justice is not being done now the new Bill will be welcome. We all welcome the step taken by the Minister to rectify injustices. Justice is a very sacred thing and it is almost humanly impossible to do justice in way that everybody will be satisfied.

In spite of the Minister's effort on this occasion, much as I would like to say otherwise I am afraid he will not get the satisfaction of hearing everyone say that justice has been done to everyone. To do as much as he can is all the Minister can do at present. I am sure he will make an honest effort and that the court to be set up will try earnestly to remedy any definite injustice.

As far as I am concerned personally, and many others like me, I was always opposed to pensions, except disability pensions where a man lost the power of earning his living which he had before he took active service in the I.R.A.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am very thankful to the Seanad as a whole for the very reasonable manner in which this particular Bill has been approached by all speakers. Undoubtedly, coming in with a Bill of this kind, it is clear any Minister that it could be misinterpreted and its intentions distorted. There was no evidence in the course of this debate of any effort to misinterpret this Bill. I am particularly grateful to Senator Mrs. Concannon for her complimentary remarks. Anyone in my position is far more accustomed to cobblestones than to bouquets, and consequently find the bouquets more embarrassing than the cobblestones.

This type of Bill is particularly difficult. It was difficult to arrive at a decision as to whether it would be wise to introduce a Bill of this kind or not. A considerable amount of balancing had to be done and a considerable amount of study, thought and consideration had to be given to the matter. The point of view expressed by Senator Honan reflects the point of view of very many genuine republicans, back from the very early days of Sinn Féin—that it was a pity to associate national service with finance, with material considerations.

However, no matter how purist our views may be on this, we have to face up to economic conditions and the material facts presented in any situation. If, through any kind of volunteer effort in any country, a great number of young men, or older men, go out and give up absolutely vital periods in their lives and then find their lives wrecked, there is an obligation on the community in general to try to recompense them in some shape or form for the vacuum that was left in their lives.

I cannot—nor would I think any one of us could—presume to sit in judgment on our predecessors over the last 25 years. All these relevant matters must have been very fully and adequately considered before the 1924 Act was introduced and they must have got further consideration—and there was the added advantages of the results and consequential effects—before the 1934 Act was introduced. However, under the 1924 Act, pensions were given for pre-Truce service to a certain number of people: in numbers, it turned out to be something less than 4,000. We had the 1934 Act introduced in the light of the knowledge gleaned from the 1924 Act and under it pensions were given to a further 11,000 people. Therefore, we must assume, in the judgment of people previous to this day, that the thing was justified. The situation facing the present Government, facing me and the Seanad at present, is that if, under either of those Acts, people were omitted who had an equal right to a pension with others who secured the pension, we would not be right in leaving them outside but should give them an opportunity to make their case now.

When I was introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, either in the Dáil or in the Seanad, I never stood on the leg of injustices in the past, injustices by one board or by another board. Each one of us knows that in the years gone by, it was difficult for any one of us who was in one camp to get certification from those in another camp that was going to advance our claim to anything, whether a pension or post or anything else. There was a great number of people in days gone by missing or lost through one cause or another. Many people were abroad, many were lost inside the Army and those outside did not know how to contact them. There was a great number of claims that did not succeed because adequate certification was not reasonably procurable, that would be procurable at the present moment.

Then, as one Senator mentioned, there were some people who for political or conscientious purposes, would not apply themselves or certify for anyone else. If times have changed and if they were vital in certifying a particular type of service by an individual and they would certify now, it would be unreasonable not to give that individual his chance of coming along now. I have evidence from more areas than one of cases—a small number of cases, but I do not think numbers should affect it—that unquestionably would have got their pensions under one of the preceding Acts if a certain individual had certified for them. That particular individual has actually stated in my presence that, because of high political feeling in the past, he would not do it. I am not referring to certifying officers, but to higher officers. That was not a monoply of one side or the other, in the divisions in the past. We all know that there were times when we would not help the other fellow over a stile, though we would be anxious enough to help him over now.

These considerations had to affect the decision as to whether we should reopen the question or not. It was with tremendous hesitation that we decided to recommend to the Dáil and Seanad that it should be reopened. One of the things that was bound to arise on reopening these particular pensions was a question that has been referred to this evening by many Senators—perhaps most extensively by Senator Ó Buachalla—that is, the question of inserting into the Bill a watertight definition of "active service." I want Senators to address themselves to exactly what that would mean. If we were to insert into a Bill of 1949—which was an amendment to an Act of 1934 and an amendment to an Act of 1924—a watertight definition of "active service" which was, let us say, more elastic or more extensive than the interpretation put on "active service" under the 1924 or 1934 Acts, it would not be sufficient under such a scheme just to establish a board to hear the cases of people who had no pension, who either did not apply before or who had been refused before. You would have to establish a court of appeal for every person who had a pension, or had applied, or had been refused a pension. In other words, you would rip right open the work done under the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1934.

I deserve the tribute paid me by the lady Senator. After all, what has been the position with regard to active service? Active service was taken as coming within a certain definite period, the nature of which would be regarded as "active" in the light of circumstances existing at the time. The interpretation of that particular term was left to a tribunal consisting of two representatives of the Old I.R.A., who had knowledge and experience of the types affected, a representative of the Department of Finance, a representative of the Department of Defence, and over these four was an impartial, legal man, who had to be a judge, a justice or a barrister of ten years' standing. Is not that a more reasonable way of arriving at an interpreta tion of active service than to have a whole lot of us starting to argue amongst ourselves—and that concerns Dáil Éireann as well—when there would be a couple of hundred different opinions as to what active service really meant. We would never get either agreement or unanimity in that way.

There will be two representatives of the Old I.R.A., two departmental representatives and a judge, justice or barrister of ten years' standing, sitting as final arbitrators. That is the idea of arbitration as generally and universally accepted. I have to presume that the two departmental representatives will argue for a narrow definition, that the two I.R.A. men will argue for a broad definition, and that the legal man will flop down near the middle of the road. In operating this particular Bill I am hoping to get the services of a judge.

I agree with the case made by Senator Hawkins and also with that made by Senator Colgan, that numbers of the cases that failed did so, not because of the definition of active service, and not because they had not active service, even according to the definition, but because they were thoroughly incompetent to make a proper case on paper. I saw hundreds of applications, when director of medical services, from people seeking disability pensions. They would never draw old age pensions, even if they were a hundred years of age, on the type of case they made on paper. They were thoroughly unused to pen and ink, and thoroughly incapable of making a proper case on paper that would impress anyone or carry conviction in anyone's mind.

With the best intention in the world, and with the idea of expediting the work under the 1934 Act, I suggested where a case was made not letting everyone go along to the Referee. After all, the idea of having two Old I.R.A. on the board was that when ignorant persons, who were not able to make a proper case on paper came up, these two friends by question and answer would make out a case for them. The proof that there is a good deal in the suggestion I made to the Seanad is, that following the Act of 1945, of 1,200 appeals that were pending, or that came before the Referee, or that had been previously turned down, and that subsequently came before the board and the Referee, when they got the opportunity to make their case by question and answer, some 680 succeeded in their claims— something more than half.

In reopening the Bill and reconstituting a board, we are doing so in the light of knowledge and experience of the past. Under this Bill everybody will have the right to go before the board and the Referee. Nobody can deprive them of that right. It is true that a great number of people will be wasting their money on a foolish adventure, merely by going before the Referee in order to be turned down. From the documentary evidence it is proposed that the Referee and the board will sift the files. They will advise certain people that, on the evidence available, and on the new evidence submitted, there does not appear to be a reasonable chance of their claims succeeding, but if they desire to go personally before the board and the Referee, then arrangements will be made for them to do so.

Some Senators seemed to be under the impression that this board is anchored to Nelson Pillar, that it cannot leave Dublin. There is nothing laid down that it must function in Dublin, and in Dublin only, or that it must go on tour. It can either function in Dublin or go on tour according to circumstances that arise. I think it appears to be obvious that in the early days the work, of necessity, must be in Dublin. That is where all the previous files are. As it is there applications must go, the early sifting must be done in Dublin. It is equally obvious that we will have in the course of such work cases distant from Dublin, cases that cannot for one reason or another come to Dublin and, in those cases the board must go to them or near them.

There is also the question of legal representation for applicants. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any lawyer representing an applicant. The idea in the Bill is that an applicant's case would be advanced, as far as it could be advanced by two experienced representatives of the Old I.R.A., but if the suggestion was that the State should brief a lawyer, then I think we would never be finished with pensions.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for tomorrow, Thursday.