Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jul 1957

Vol. 48 No. 8

Army Pensions Bill, 1957—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

This Bill is mainly concerned with the grant of increases in disablement pensions and wound gratuities, and in certain allowances and gratuities to dependents of deceased persons, payable under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1953. The increases are effective from 1st August, 1956, and in fact are being paid since that date on the authority of a Supplementary Estimate for pensions approved on the 25th July, 1956. This Bill provides the necessary statutory authority for them. The scale of increases is the same as that applied to other classes of State pensions by the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1956 and ranges from 15 per cent. on pensions not exceeding £100 to 6 per cent. on pensions of £450 or over.

Pensions of £450 or more are being increased for the first time under this measure. Under previous legislation which granted increases, a pension or aggregate of pensions which amounted to £450 or more got no increase. Moreover, in the case of a pension or aggregate of pensions so near to £450 that the grant of the appropriate increase would bring the amount above that figure, the increase was limited to such amount as would bring the pension or aggregate to £450 and no more. That restriction is not repeated in this measure, with the result that pensions of £450 or more will receive an increase of 6 per cent. However, the increases apply to the pensions as payable under the previous Acts, so that the effects of the previous ceiling must be taken into account before the rates of increases now authorised are applied. This position is achieved by Sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Bill.

Married pensions, that is pensions payable to married men in addition to basic disablement pension, are being increased by a flat 35 per cent. instead of the 25 per cent. authorised in the Army Pensions Act of 1953. These married pensions vary in such a way that it is not practicable without creating anomalies to include them in the scale of increases which apply to the basic pensions.

Gratuities payable in respect of wounds, and gratuities to widows and other dependents of deceased persons to whom the Acts apply, are being increased by approximately 75 per cent. These gratuities have not been increased hitherto and the percentage increases now being authorised are therefore higher than those applicable to the pensions and allowances. Certain educational allowances which were not previously increased are now being increased as well. The foregoing matters are dealt with in Part II of the Bill.

The estimated total annual cost of the increases provided for is £23,330 and the necessary provision has been made in the Army Pensions Estimate for the current year.

Part III of the Bill contains some miscellaneous amendments to which I shall now refer. Sections 31 and 39 amend the Acts by relieving the Minister for Finance of certain functions which he exercises in relation to the making of grants of pension and other matters. At present the consent of the Minister for Finance must be obtained before a grant of pension, allowance or gratuity is made under the terms of the Acts. The amendments embodied in Sections 31 and 39 will remove the necessity for such consent and in future grants will be made solely by the Minister for Defence. A similar measure in respect of awards of service pension under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Acts to former members of the Permanent Defence Force was recently passed in this House. That measure, and these amendments now, are part of a general development between my Department and the Department of Finance, aimed at improving administration by removing requirements which are not really essential from an Exchequer point of view but which involve time and administrative procedures which would not otherwise be necessary. I am, of course, bound by the terms of the Acts and the interests of the Exchequer will in no way be adversely affected. On the contrary, official time will be saved and more expeditious clearance of cases as they arise will be possible.

Section 32 provides a new scale of percentages of pay for calculation of pension in the case of an officer of the Permanent Defence Force who retires on or after the date of the passing of the Bill and who may qualify for a pension under the 1923 Act, i.e. in respect of a wound received before 1st October, 1923. This arises from the introduction of consolidated pay for officers and follows what was done in the 1953 Act in relation to other pensions.

Sections 33, 36 and 38 deal with certain aspects of special allowances. The latest date at present laid down for an application for a service medal which, if granted, renders a person qualified to apply for a special allowance, is 5th August, 1954, i.e., 12 months after the date of the passing of the Army Pensions Act, 1953. Section 36 moves forward that date to one not later than 12 months after the date of the passing of this Bill. Since the last closing date, viz., 5th August, 1954, over 3,000 applications for such medals have been received by my Department and these will be validated by this section in so far as the time limit for application is concerned and no renewal of such applications will be necessary.

Section 33 deals with the position which arises when, in the case of a person already in receipt of a special allowance, his entitlement to the medal on which his eligibility for the special allowance is based, is impugned by later evidence. If, in such a case, I cease to be satisfied that the medal was duly awarded, then the special allowance is of course stopped. This section gives me clear-cut legal power for that step and it also enables me to restore the special allowance if further later evidence should substantiate the original claim to the medal. The section operates as from the date of the passing of the 1945 Army Pensions Act, which introduced the service medal as a qualification for a special allowance.

Section 38 also deals with special allowances and makes two changes. It removes the obligation placed by Section 43 of the Army Pensions Act of 1953 on a special allowance holder, to notify any improvement in his means since they were last investigated on my behalf. Experience of the operation of that section since it was introduced has shown that for legal and practical reasons it has been largely inoperative, so that its removal is desirable. In future, the normal departmental investigation will be relied upon to bring any improvement in means to notice and I am satisfied that this is the most practical way to meet the situation. The other change effected by Section 38 of the Bill is that, in effect, it applies the terms of Section 50 of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, to prosecutions. This provides that a prosecution for an offence under the section may be brought within six months after the date when the evidence to sustain the prosecution came to the notice of the Minister for Defence.

Sections 34 and 35 relate to allowances payable under Part II of the 1953 Act in respect of certain deceased persons who had pre-Truce service. Section 34 gives power to the Minister for Finance to review and alter an opinion reached by him in certain cases and to grant an allowance if he should be of opinion that the applicant should be treated as a dependent of the deceased. Section 35 extends the time limit laid down in Section 6 of the Act of 1953 for applications where an applicant died before a decision was reached on his claim and where another relative then wished to apply. The position in this respect at present is that the second relative might be ruled out under the existing time limit before in fact he would be aware of his eligibility to apply.

Section 37 arises primarily as a consequence of the amendments in Sections 31 and 39 which do away with the necessity for the consent of the Minister for Finance to the grant of, among other things, a gratuity to a relative of a person who dies in certain circumstances before an award of a pension, allowance or gratuity is made to him. Section 12 of the Act of 1949 and Section 44 of the Act of 1953 are repealed, but the new section adapts their provisions to the new circumstances and also extends the benefit of the earlier provisions to the case of a disablement pensioner who dies after the expiry of one award and before a further award has been made. In such a case a gratuity equal to the amount of the pension which would have been due to the date of death will, as a result of this new section, be payable to any of the relatives mentioned in the section. The section becomes effective as from the 1st November, 1955.

The foregoing is an outline of what is contained in this measure. If there are any further points on which information is required I shall endeavour to deal with them when I am concluding.

Mr. Carton

I should like, first of all, to welcome the Minister for Defence on his first appearance in the Seanad.

I wish to make one or two points on this Bill, because I understand it is intended merely to validate something which was carried out on the 1st August, 1956. The Minister in his opening statement referred to quite a number of pensions in the upper brackets. I shall try to bring the Minister and the House down to the lower brackets in the pension field. From time to time, the Minister and his predecessors— Government after Government—have completely neglected to study the sphere in which the ex-private soldier has to live after he leaves the Army. Having completed his 21 years, he is given a pension which, immediately prior to the introduction of this Bill, worked out at 15/9. It is bad, to my mind and I am sure it is bad to the mind of every Senator here, that a man, having given the best years of his life in the service of his country, should at the end of that period get the princely sum of 15/9—which is now increased, by this Bill, by 15 per cent. of that amount.

Yesterday the Minister for Health, when discussing what it would cost a man to live at home, rather than in a hospital, said it would cost more than £2 2s. a week to live at home. I entirely agree with that and the whole House, by its attitude to the Minister for Health yesterday, also agrees with it. I have not the effrontery to blame the Minister; I am blaming the system. I am blaming all the Ministers and all the Governments over the years.

When there is any publicity in connection with pensions, invariably the public hear about the £450 a year pensions. As I said before, these are the pensions in the bigger brackets. Nobody hears about the private soldier. I am putting his case to the Minister to-night. Not alone is 15/9 the amount allocated to a man after giving the best years of his life to the State but there are no less than five different categories.

Prior to the introduction of this Bill, we had one category at 15/9; a second at 18/-; a third at 20/-; a fourth at 21/9; and a fifth at 24/6. The first three categories are affected by the 15/-. I do not know how the other two categories, namely, the 21/9 and the 24/6, are affected. However, if the 15/9 pension is increased by 15 per cent., then that soldier's pension will approximate to 18/- a week. I know I can be told that if he is married, he will receive an extra 7/- or 8/- However little we may think and however poor a view we may take of the ex-soldier, for Heaven's sake let us not take an equally poor view of his wife. We give him 18/-; let us leave the money we give to his wife out of it.

As I said earlier, I will not take up the Minister's time nor the time of the House now because I realise the Minister can do very little at this stage. However, I hope that on this, his initial visit to this House, my few words to him may cause him to give consideration in a general way to the case of the private soldier. If the Minister cannot possibly increase the rate of the fellow below, or if he has difficulty because of the various categories with which I know he is tied up, and so on, could we not reach some level of parity so that every soldier who gives 21 years of his life to the Army will be treated similarly? Why should a soldier because he left on the first day of a month be treated differently from the soldier who left a few days later? I know that civil servants will find a reason for it. They have found a reason for many things. Nevertheless, it is unfair to cut short what is a decent and economic allocation to an ex-soldier and change it from a pension to what every one of us must agree is a pittance. There is no use in asking the youth of the country to join the Army if, when the youth looks around them, they see the pittance given to a soldier after spending the best years of his life in the service of the State.

Some people are inclined to say that the soldier was not at war and that, therefore, he should not get as much as the fellow who was at war. I am neither from Trinity nor from National. I cannot quote Shakespeare ad lib., but I might repeat now something which was said a long time ago: “They also serve who only stand and wait.” No matter what army he soldiers in, the mile is just as long, the burden is just as heavy, the neglect of his future is equal to that of any soldier anywhere else on earth. The private soldier of the National Army has been treated in a niggardly fashion over the years. He is the truly forgotten man.

The House has had a long and wearisome day and I merely mention this now. Perhaps in the future, as the Minister is probably aware, we shall meet in other spheres and he will be able to listen to my plea privately and give hope for the fellow with less than £1 a week to keep himself; if he has a wife, he will get an extra 7/- or 8/-. In all, we are giving him about 26/- a week, whereas if he had waited until 65, he would get 24/-. I should like the Minister to take note of that.

The remainder of the Bill is perfectly in order. I welcome it as it is a measure and represents something. I am sure the Minister will think in the future of raising the standard of pensions for privates and for junior N.C.O.s in the Army. We have always prided ourselves on being a democratic nation, on never having servility. However, when one sees the vast gap that exists between the pension of an N.C.O. and an officer in the Irish Army, it makes one think and wonder if we have introduced an aristocracy which we thought we had got rid of.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I welcome this Bill as I would welcome any Bill which tends to improve the lot of those who offered their lives and the dependents of those who offered their lives for the independence of this country. I welcome it, too, in so far as it tends to improve the lot of those engaged in defending that independence up to date. I think it is true of all countries that, in time of war or such emergency, the soldier is the greatest hero in the land. Nothing is good enough for him but when the danger has passed and the country is at peace the heroism of the soldier and his sacrifices are no longer appreciated in most countries.

I am glad to be able to place on record that in all the years I have been associated with both Houses of the Oireachtas I have not heard one dissentient voice raised fom any part of either House when any proposal was put forward to improve the lot of those who gave this unselfish service to the country. On pages 1 and 2 of this Bill the large number of Acts that have been passed for this purpose are indicated but their very number shows that each one of them, while it improves the position, always fell short of what was to be desired. Even to date, with all the goodwill in the world, we have not succeeded in making the provision for those people which this House would wish to make.

Mr. Carton

Hear, hear!

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Therefore we must hope that we shall continue to amend those Acts until such time as we can make the provision that this House would feel justified in making for the persons affected by those Acts. While I welcome the Bill from the point of view that it is an improvement, I must confess that I am disappointed with it as it falls short of what both Houses would like to do for these people. I am not satisfied with this measure and I sincerely hope that this debate will encourage the Minister and the Government to bring in the further amendments required at the moment and to do so with the least possible delay. I hope that this Bill will get a speedy passage so that there will be no delay involved for the people who are to benefit by it. It is not, of course, a Bill to increase pensions, as would be supposed from the title, but merely legalises, as the Minister explained, pensions payable since July, 1956. There are sections in the Bill that we must welcome and which we are very pleased to see.

I am glad to see the time extended for the application for medals as this section will ensure that all persons who have been granted medals since the 5th August, 1954, will be entitled to the benefit of the special allowances, having proved that the medals were duly awarded. Under this section a further time limit has again been specified. Perhaps it is good tactics from a departmental point of view to indicate that there should be a closure some time or another. I am one of those who hold that there should not be a time limit and that whatever a man or woman is entitled to-day, in consideration of his or her services to the country, they should still be entitled to five years or ten years from now. If they wish to avail of it, that is their right. No Act of this House should deprive any of those who gave that unselfish service to this country of anything to which they may be entitled, whenever their circumstances change or whenever they may feel that they require it or wish to avail of it.

There is another section with which I am very disappointed. That is the section dealing with dependents. I think it is Section 37. I am in entire disagreement with the sections dealing with dependents in all the Army Pensions Acts and I hope to voice that disagreement until such time as this grave wrong has been remedied. This grave wrong has been done to dependents in all the Pensions Acts up to date and it is repeated again in this Bill. It is hard to understand how a wife, father, mother, brother and sister can be declared dependents of a man who gave his life for the country and that a child cannot be considered a dependent. Surely that is fundamentally wrong? Surely a child is a man's dependent? In ordinary life a man's child is his dependent. There is no doubt about it but the Department of Defence and all the Army Pensions Acts refuse to recognise that. They will recognise his wife, father, mother, brother and sister as dependents but not his child.

I referred to this matter in a motion before this House last December and I mentioned this grave wrong. The then Minister alleged that there was some provision in some Act for disabled children, over 16 years of age, of men killed in action. I do not know what Act it was but the reference is to be found in Volume 46, column 1684 of the Official Reports. It was suggested that there was provision in some one of the Army Pensions Acts prior to 1932. I have examined all the Acts to the best of my ability and I have, so far, failed to find where this provision existed. I should be glad if the Minister would again examine the Acts to find if this provision was there, and, whether it was there or not, if he would make arrangements to introduce an amendment to the Army Pensions Acts to that effect.

I hold it is a disgrace to us that 37 years after a man gave his life for us, we have failed in our duty to provide for his disabled child. There are, thank God, very few cases of that description. There are very few cases, indeed, of a man who gave his life for Ireland being invalided, disabled and destitute, but there are some. I know of one at any rate who is forced to live on a few shillings home assistance. His child undoubtedly would have been provided for by the father, if the father lived his normal life. If he never made an effort to strike a blow in the struggle for independence and had lived his normal life he would have made provision for his child who later became disabled. That is, I think, a standing disgrace to each and every one of us—a disgrace that we must make up our minds to have remedied. I hope I have said enough about it. I bring this grave matter to the Minister's attention so that he will take immediate steps to deal with it.

I stated at the outset that I welcome this Bill for what is in it. I am disappointed and dissatisfied with what is not in it and should be in it. I trust that we will not delay it, and that we will very shortly have an opportunity of welcoming the Minister here with a Bill to compensate the people concerned for what is omitted from this Bill.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to welcome the Minister on his first visit to the Seanad and also welcome this Bill, particularly Section 36, which provides for the payment of special allowances to medal holders. It is to be regretted, as other speakers said, that circumstances do not allow the provisions being made to be more generous, but, with Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Carton, I hope that in time to come the Minister will be able to come back to the Seanad with a Bill which will at least go further—as this one does—to satisfy the need for justice in this regard.

I should like strongly to support the plea which Senator Carton made for better provision for the private soldier. I feel that if we are to have an Army and if the Army is to attract the best young men in the country who feel that they should make the Army their career, then we must offer better inducements than our best at the moment. In regard to the retiring pensions for soldiers, I hope that in time to come, when circumstances permit, there will be an improvement in this direction, too.

In welcoming the Bill, and in particular in relation to the sections dealing with investigation of means, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the complaint of London members of the Irish Republican Army. They have a serious grievance to the effect that officials of the British Government have been used in the investigation of claims. I know that these investigations at home are not done by any officials of his own Department. As far as I can understand, they are done by a special officer and in regard to claims from across the Channel, I see no reason why it is necessary, if it is a fact, that British officials or the services of any British agency should be utilised for any purpose whatsoever in connection with any pensions claim of an Irishman under his own Government.

I should like also, in relation to the sections covering surgical and medical treatment, to advance the plea that the Minister and the Government would give consideration at some future time —I know it is not possible at the moment because of financial stringency —to the need for the establishment of a soldier's home here for disabled I.R.A. men and also for what one might call "old sweats" who have served their country in the Regular Army. I feel that it is an amenity long overdue and well worthy of consideration.

In regard to the 1953 Act covering widows and dependents of soldiers who died on service, I understand that there are a few cases which were not covered by that Act because of inability to apply in time. I wonder whether it would be possible to indicate if an extension of the time for an application under that Act could be made either now or in any other way in the future. I welcome the Bill. I wish the Minister success in his efforts to make things as good as possible for old soldiers.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Níl fonn cainte orm-sa i dtaobh an Bhille chun aon argóint in a choinne a luadh. Tá fáilte agam roimis. Is dóigh liom gur beagán den méid atá tuillte ag na daoine atá dhá shóláthar anois. Mar adúirt an Seanadóir Ó Súilleabháin, nílim-se sásta ach oiread go bhfuil gach ní ba cheart a dhéanamh á dhéanamh san mBille, ach b'fhéidir le carth-annacht agus le có-aontú an Rialtais go leasófar é sin ar ball.

Deir Alt 36:—

The reference in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Act of 1953 to an application made not later than 12 months after the date of the passing of that Act, shall be construed as a reference to an application made not later than 12 months after the date of the passing of this Act.

An cheist a bhí ag an Seanadoir Ó Maoláin, ba mhaith liom a thathaint ar an Aire. Tá súil agam go ndéanfar beart éigin chun an dearmad mar gheall ar na dátaí a cheartú. Ceist chruinn bhaileach is ea í gur tharla dearmad éigin i dtaobh dátaí agus ba chóir go bhféadfaí rud éigin a dhéanamh chun an dearmad a cheartú. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire cad é an chás atá i gceist agam.

Mr. Ahern

I am in full agreement with the previous speakers on this measure. I will give the House an instance of what Senator O'Sullivan has just mentioned. I have here a letter from the Cork I.R.A. Association. In May, 1921, a volunteer was killed by Crown Forces. To-day, his daughter is living on home assistance. She is unable to work and is, therefore, unable to earn a livelihood. She is supported by the ratepayers. Is that not an appalling state of affairs in 1957? Here is the only daughter of a man who gave his life for Irish freedom, living on home assistance. That is something of which we should all be ashamed. I ask the Minister to consider these cases sympathetically and to bring in some amending legislation to cover them. They are very few in number and they should not be allowed to continue. In a few years, all these people will be dead. We should err on the side of generosity where the Old I.R.A. are concerned.

Mr. Colley

I also welcome the Minister to the House on the occasion of his first visit here. I welcome the Bill, as far as it goes. It is an essential measure for those concerned. It is a pity, at the same time, that the allowances are so very meagre. Undoubtedly, some improvements are being effected. These special allowances have created a good deal of trouble. The Minister mentioned that there are over 3,000 applications in the Department. That shows the extent of the grievances that exist.

Most of the difficulty arises because of the time limit inserted in every Act. Senator O'Sullivan referred to that aspect and there is a good deal in his contention that, if a man is entitled to some benefit now, then equally he should have been entitled to that benefit all along. I know that that might lead to a tremendous amount of bother, particularly in relation to the special allowances. There have been instances of two individuals with medals, one considered eligible and the other not, because of the date on which he received his medal. I am glad this Bill will put an end to all that.

In relation to the time limit, a number of Old I.R.A. were turned down for active service medals and that caused them to lose interest. They never applied for the ordinary medal and in many cases they are actually unaware that they could get a special allowance. They do not learn of that, until they reach the stage when they are practically destitute. I have met several cases and, very often, when one gets them to apply, one discovers that the period in which to make application has lapsed. That means they have to wait until amending legislation is introduced. In practically every Bill of which I have had experience, the principal amendment was one to extend the time limit. The situation seems to me to be rather ridiculous. In the meantime, considerable hardship is suffered by people who are undoubtedly entitled to and deserving of all the benefits given under the various Acts. I appeal to the Minister to do something to remedy that situation. The time limit has led to an immense amount of trouble.

This Bill, as I understand it, merely makes legal certain action taken last year in relation to people with wound pensions, disability pensions and dependents of those who were killed. It is disappointing to find that it does not cover the Old I.R.A. I made a protest in the Dáil on that issue when another Bill was going through that House. I know the financial position is bad, but, at the same time, I do not think men like the Old I.R.A. men should have to wait two or three years, as distinct from other classes entitled to State pensions who are paid immediately. Added to that, is the fact that these benefits are paid only from the date on which the Act comes into operation. I want to make my protest against it. Apparently it is becoming a habit. I repeat what I said in the beginning, that, as far as it goes, I welcome the Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In a sense, what this Bill is doing is what has been already done for other types of pensioners, and the measure of increase that is being given is of the same order. I have already spoken in the House about the amount of such increases, the proportion allowed. I am in agreement with those Senators who say that the increase does not seem to be either in time or enough. I notice that where a pensioner is getting up to £100 a year under Section 3, that amount is to be increased by 15 per cent. Where a person is getting a little more than that, up to £125 a year, he is to get £15, and so on. I find it hard to imagine how these pensioners exist on a pension of £100 or £125 a year, even with the increase of 15 per cent.

I do realise that all these Bills mesh in together; they are tied up one with the other. To put it very bluntly, if we have been niggardly towards other pensioners, we must apply the same niggardly standards to these.

Now, in 1934 the cost-of-living index in this country had gone up from the 1914 base 100 to 152. By 1947 that 152 had risen to 319. In other words, by 1947 it had more than doubled since 1934. It was then felt by the authorities perhaps that the figures were looking a bit too glaringly increased, so they decided to have a new base, the base 100 of 1947 and by 1956 that 100 had again risen by 34 per cent. to 134. It has risen again since then. The Minister for Finance has told us that another 4½ points have been added to it by the new Budget, so that it is up to 138 or 139 or perhaps 140. So that the cost of living between 1934 and 1947 doubled, and since 1947 another 40 per cent. has been added on to that.

It is against that background that I say advisedly that a miserable 15 per cent. added to the pension of a man who is getting £100 a year is grossly inadequate. I know there is nothing much we can do about it, particularly in the Seanad, because we cannot even put down amendments that would put an increased charge on public funds. Such an amendment would not be in order. But we can at least voice a protest in the hope that this Government, encouraged by speeches of several of the Fianna Fáil Senators, might look again at all these pension rates and perhaps come back to us within measurable time and deal just a little more generously with these pensioners and with the others.

I have adverted to the fact that we have not the power to amend this Bill in relation to finance, but it is also true that were we to pass an amendment here to-night, or to-morrow morning, the entire Dáil would have to be brought back to consider it, or else it would have to be left until, at the very earliest, October 23rd next. All the pensioners who are to get these very small increases would then not even get them in the months to come until the Dáil had reconsidered our amendment. Therefore, of course, we are very loath to propose any amendment to the Bill, and I feel that in a sense we as a Seanad are placed in an unfair position by the bringing in of such a Bill a this to this House after the Dáil has risen. I admit that, in the circumstances, there are a number of Bills that simply have to be treated in this way and I am not making any special reproach, but I think I speak for all of us when I say that we do not like it. We do not like the feeling that we must either pass this unamended, or else deprive these people of their increased pensions for three or four months.

Several Senators have talked about amendments. Senator Ahern, Senator Colley, Senator An Seabhac, all suggested amendments of one kind or another which they would like the Minister to consider, or perhaps to make in a new Bill and it is on that point that I should like to speak now. I believe that there is a measure of dissatisfaction in this House and probably in the other House, and, I think, probably in the Government, with the terms of this Bill, and with its provisions, a measure of dissatisfaction such as would warrant the bringing in at an early date of a new amending one-or two-clause Bill which would go through swiftly and which would iron out many of the difficulties.

It has already been mentioned that the time limit under some of the preceding Acts was very short. I think under the 1953 Act it was a time limit of only one year for application and it is a fact that grave injustice might have been caused in many cases by the placing of so short a time limit upon the application for pensions under the 1953 Act.

The 1953 Act is, in fact, amended in certain particulars by this Bill. I would contend that it would be perfectly simple to have had a clause or section, even a paragraph, in this Bill which would amend the 1953 Act in relation to the extension of the time limit for application for pensions under that Act. It would have been very simple to do in the Dáil. It would have been relatively simple to do here had we the time, if this was not so near the end of the session. That is the kind of amendment that I should have liked to put down, and I do not think it would have been ruled out of order on the ground that it would increase the charge on public funds, but I am inhibited from putting it down by the consideration that so to do, were it passed, would be, as I have indicated, to hold up the granting of pensions to all these people.

I do not intend to mention names, but I have in mind a particular case, the widow of an officer who gave long years of service to our Army, and who was granted a pension under one of the previous Acts, a widow's pension of £112 a year, with certain small allowances for her children, none of whom had qualified at the university, two of whom have since qualified. I would like to ask the Seanad to consider what was to be expected of such a widow then, or such widow now, granted such an amount, in relation to the education of her children? How could she be expected on the money granted to her to give them a full education if their intelligence merited it? Quite obviously, she could not.

If she was a woman of intelligence and courage, she might be expected to take a job and go out to work. In the particular case I have in mind, she did so and—I think it is under the 1923 Act—a means test is applied to a widow under those circumstances, who tries to increase this £112 a year for the sake of her children's education. How can we tolerate such a means test on such a basis? How can such a woman be deprived of the right to go out and work in such circumstances? How can we tolerate, if she does so, that the State can come after her and try to collect back money on the grounds that she has been working for a living when she could have been living in luxurious idleness I suppose, with her three children, on £112 a year?

I would say that that particular case could be dealt with in one of two ways, either by an amending clause in this Bill to abolish that type of means test or by raising the basis of the level of calculation of such a means test. Again, it could in this case have been shown that the death of the officer in question was occasioned by the nature of the dangerous work in which he engaged, for the sake of the nation. The case could have been dealt with by an application under the 1953 Act which would have been justified were it not for the Act that there was a time limit of 12 months. That method could still have been used by putting a small clause in this Bill in order to be able to render justice to such a pensioner. I would just like to mention the fact that there is such a means test under which anybody earning more than a certain sum of money shall draw a reduced pension. If the cost of living goes rocketing up, that certain amount of money, which might have represented a considerable sum in 1923, represents a very inconsiderable sum now. Even there you have a big injustice involved.

Before deciding, in view of all the difficulties, that we should put down amendments, and insist upon a Committee Stage, and if necessary hold up this Bill for three or four months, I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will not merely give such a case consideration but, if he finds that such a case cannot be dealt with in justice and fairness under present legislation, he will promise us to bring in a further amending Bill within a short period of time, a one or two-clause Bill that could go swiftly through both Houses in order to meet the injustice of that particular case and any others like it. I would plead with him, therefore to-night to give us his opinion on that and to give us, I hope, his assurance on that point, as I believe he is in possession of the facts in relation to at least one such case.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Boland)

Most of the criticism in connection with this Bill was not on what it does contain but rather on what it does not contain. Senator Carton started off under a misapprehension. As I explained in my opening statements, this Bill as far as it goes, deals only with increases in respect of disability pensions and wound pensions. It does not deal with the case of service pensions to which Senator Carton was referring.

Mr. Carton

Does it not do so in Part II?

Mr. Boland

No; that deals only with wound and disability pensions. If the Senator looks at it more closely, he will see it does not. Those pensions to which the Senator referred are dealt with in a different way by Defence Forces pensions schemes and there will be, in a short time, an amending scheme for Defence Force pensions. The procedure is that this amending scheme will have to be passed by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Carton

Perhaps my mistake may have been opportune, then.

Mr. Boland

We will be able to have a fuller discussion on it on that stage. The question of raising pensions generally is a very big one and would have to get a great deal of consideration. This Bill simply does not deal with cases of that type at all. Senator T. O'Sullivan, Senator Colley, and possibly some other Senators referred to the fact that in the case of special allowances, we were introducing a further time limit. Their attitude is that there should be no time limit at all, that a person should be permitted to apply for a medal, by virtue of which a special allowance might subsequently be granted, at any time in the future. As time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to verify whether people had the service that would entitle them to these medals. Is it not wise to attempt to get all these applications in and dealt with now? Senator Colley said these people did not know of this until they were actually on the verge of destitution and then somebody brings it to their notice that special allowances may be granted on the basis of these medals.

With all the publicity that has been given in the past to this matter and with the further publicity that will result from the introduction and passing of this Act, it should be fairly well known to anybody who had I.R.A. service that special allowances in certain circumstances may be granted to the holders of these medals. On this occasion, after a further 12 months have been allowed, there should be no justification for anybody not applying for his medal within that 12 months. We should attempt to get finality on this occasion, and get all the applications in while there are still people who can verify the applications. With the 3,000 applications we have already on hand, and with the further ones which people will now submit, it will be possible to get them all dealt with while there are people still able to give the necessary verification.

I think that neither Senator O'Sullivan nor Senator Colley would like to have us deal with applications for medals, to which special allowances are attached, on the basis of the applicant's own claims or evidence. It is advisable when we are disbursing public funds that we should be certain that the people who are claiming these allowances are actually Old I.R.A. Therefore we must get verification and it is very wise to keep within this time limit of another 12 months.

Senator O'Sullivan referred to the section dealing with dependents' allowances. I am aware of the particular case to which he referred, to the hardship of a child not being considered a dependent. Unfortunately I am not in a position yet to indicate what action I can take in that regard but the matter is under active consideration at the moment.

He also stated that the former Minister alleged here that, at one stage, there was provision for a child of a deceased Old I.R.A. man to be regarded as a dependent but that it was taken out in 1932. Actually, the provision was never there except in respect of children up to the age of 16 years. What happened was that, in the case to which Senator O'Sullivan was referring, the child in question was born in 1916 and reached the age of 16 in 1932 and therefore in that year became ineligible to be considered as a dependent according to present legislation. As I say, that is being considered at the moment and I hope a decision will be reached very shortly.

Senator Mullins reinforced the remarks of Senator Carton in regard to private soldiers and N.C.O.s. As I have explained, that comes under a different scheme altogether which will come before the Seanad shortly when we can have a full discussion on it.

Senator Mullins also referred to the question of British officials being used to verify the means of Old I.R.A. men who are resident in England. That is a long-standing arrangment and it is only in very recent times that any objection has been raised to it. These special allowances were introduced for the relief of destitution in these cases and there are very definite regulations laid down as to the circumstances in which they can be granted. Therefore, there is a duty on the Department to ascertain whether an applicant for a special allowances is qualified for it under the various regulations or not. I certainly cannot think of any other way in which we could ascertain the means of a person resident in Britain than by applying to the officers of the British Department of Social Welfare. I do not think there is any reason to suppose that these officers would be in any way prejudiced against these people because they were Old I.R.A. men. I do not know if there has been any allegation that such a thing has happened, but I cannot think of any other way in which we could obtain this information which is required under the Act.

Rinne an Seanadóir An Seabhac tagairt do Alt 36. D'iarr sé orm cead a thabhairt d'éinne a rinne dearmad ar iarratas a chur isteach in am an t-iarratas a chur isteach anois. Tá sé sin á dhéanamh againn sa mBille seo maidir le buinn seirbhíse. Maidir leis an gcás speisialta a luaigh An Seabhac sílim gurb é an cás céanna a ndearna an Seanadóir Sheehy Skeffington tagairt dó ina dhiaidh sin. Sin rud eile nach bhfuil aon rud á dhéanamh againn faoi sa Bhille seo, sé sin, na liúntais bhaintreach. Ní bhaineann Alt 36 ach le liúntais speisialta a gabhann leis na buinn seirbhíse. I dtaobh an cháis sin ní fheadar ar mhaith leis An Seabhac go ndéanfainn tagairt speisialta dhó anois. Sé mó thuairim féin nach ceart é sin a dhéanamh faoi láthair. Más mian leis na Seanadóirí teacht agus caint liom go príobháideach sílim go mbéadh se níos fearr.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Táim sasta dul ag caint leis an Aire aon uair is áil leis, ach ba mhaith linn tuairím a bheith againn cen sórt aigne a bheadh ag an Aire faoin scéal.

Caoimhghin Ó Beoláin

Níl sé chomh shimplí agus a cheapann Seanadóirí. Tá sé mar choinníoll nuair a tugtar pinsean mar sin do bhaintreach go gcaithfidh sí foirm a líonadh isteach in aghaidh na bliana ag dhearbhú nach bhfuil aon airgid á fháil aice ó údarás mar choiste gairm-oideachais, comhairle chontae nó aon udarás mar sin, nó ón Stát. Líonadh an fhoirm sin isteach gach bliain sa chás seo agus sin é an deacracht atá ag baint leis.

Maidir leis an gcás seo níl fhios agam an bhféadfadh sí cruthú a thabhairt dúinn go bhfuair a fear chéile bás de bhárr a sheirbhíse san Arm le linn na hégeandála. Tá sé sin riachtanach chun an líuntas eile a fháil faoi na hAchta Arm Phinsean. Níl fhios agam an féidir an dáta iarratais le haghaidh an líuntais fé na hAchta sin do shíniú do réir mar a deineadh sa Bhille seo i dtaobh buinn seirbhíse ach más féidir liom é a dhéanamh, déanfaidh mé é. Mar sin féin, ní dhéanfaidh sé sin cinnte go bhfaighidh an bhean sin an líuntas úd. Caithfidh sí cruthú a thabhairt go bhfuair a fear-chéile bás de bharr a sheirbhíse le linn na héigeandála.

Senator Colley also objected to the time limit, but I have dealt with that. I am convinced that a time limit is necessary, even if it is only from the point of view of verification. He also made the case that the military service pensions and other allowances should be increased all round. Of course, one point about that is that to do it would more than double the cost of the increases as far as the Department of Defence is concerned. Special allowances were increased in 1953, and in addition to that the means test has been very substantially modified on a number of occasions.

I feel sure that Senators are familiar with the modifications which were made and which were all to the benefit of the applicants. The position has been considerably improved with regard to special allowances since they were first introduced. The fact that must be borne in mind is that these special allowances were introduced only for the relief of destitution in these cases. It is understandable that people should try to improve them still more. The whole thing creates a difficult problem since the money must be provided, and no matter how much the allowances are raised there will always be a case for raising them still further.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to the fact that these pensions are too small, in any case. I should say, of course, that they were tied up with pensions generally. The question of increasing the actual basic pensions generally is a very big one indeed. The whole position will have to be considered in a very general way. I do not know whether Senator Sheehy Skeffington would like me to refer any further to the particular case he mentioned. What I did say about it was that it is a condition of the type of pension that the widow in question had that she should report any remuneration she was getting in respect of any job remunerated from public funds, either from the State or from local authorities. The form making such a return must be signed annually. This form was signed annually in this case.

There is another type of allowance to which that restriction would not apply. But, as the Senator said, she was late in applying for that at the time she did make application. In the meantime, she was drawing this other type of allowance. To get the allowance for which she appears to think she might qualify now, it is necessary for her to prove that her husband's death was due to a disease contracted as a result of his service during the emergency. Whether that could be proved in this case or not is problematical. I shall consider the possibility of extending the date for making applications in this respect. When a person makes the application, of course the evidence must be produced to back it up.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Might I ask the Minister a question arising from that? He has referred to this widow as drawing "another type of allowance", which was paid out of public funds. In fact, she was being paid a salary for work done, a very different matter from a free grant.

Mr. Boland

It was remuneration out of public funds.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It was for work done, and should not be looked upon as a charitable grant.

Mr. Boland

I was referring to the pension she was getting by virtue of her husband's death while serving with the Defence Forces. I am aware that the other remuneration was in respect of a job. Unfortunately, the regulations provide that receipt of such remuneration must be notified and a form signed annually. It was signed in this case stating that no such money was being drawn from such funds in respect of her position with the public body concerned.

I think that deals with all the points that were raised. I would, therefore, ask the Seanad to pass the Bill as it stands in order to give us authority to pay the increased pensions and allowances which are being provided for here, and also the authority to extend the date for applications for medals by virtue of which special allowances are granted and for the other matters coming under this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I have just one more question. The Minister has assured us that he will introduce an extension of the time limit in relation to the relevant section of the 1953 Act.

Mr. Boland

I only said I would consider it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In what form? I take it it cannot be done by way of regulation. Is the Minister telling us he will consider introducing legislation?

Mr. Boland

I shall examine the position and consider if it is possible to bring in amending legislation to extend the time limit.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The original time limit was only one year, which seems to be a very short time.

Mr. Ahern

In relation to the lady I mentioned from East Cork——

Mr. Boland

This is exactly the same type of case as Senator O'Sullivan mentioned. My reply in that case was that the matter was under active consideration. It involved the question of a child being considered as a dependent. I am not yet in a position to state what the eventual decision will be. It should be arrived at in a very short time.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.