Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 1980

Vol. 94 No. 12

Army Pensions Bill, 1980: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mícheál Cranitch

Before the adjournment on last Tuesday night, I was dealing with section 5 of this Bill. That section provides certain sums for the widow and children of an officer or soldier who is killed in the course of duty as a member of the forces, or who receives while serving in the forces a wound attributable to such service and dies within four years after receiving such wound in circumstances attributable solely to the wound. While no sum, no matter how big, could make up for the loss of the one who has gone, the amounts being offered under the provisions of this Bill are generous. The widow will receive 50 per cent of the husband's annual pay and each eligible child will receive, if the mother is alive, 13? per cent and on the death of the mother, 26 per cent. A widow with three children will be in receipt of nine-tenths of the pay of the husband. That is reasonably generous. Some speakers made the point that it should be much bigger. There is a limit to what can be done and generally speaking Senators will agree that that is a very reasonable provision.

It is reasonable to expect that when discussing this Bill one would begin with section 5 on account of the tragic circumstances in which some of our soldiers lost their lives in recent times. No words could describe the feelings of the people in that connection. While it is not the purpose of the Bill to discuss the circumstances in which these men met their deaths, the least one could say is that we are very proud that they died, not in an aggressive way, but in defence of the peace of the world. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend". These men laid down their lives, not alone for their friends, but to a large extent for their enemies as well.

I would like to refer to sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. These sections have to do with making further provision for recipients of what was known as the special allowance and other allowances also in so far as the widows of these men have now an entitlement to certain sums of money. If we are to give those men their due, the men of the Old IRA, the men who were responsible to a very large extent for the freedom we enjoy, no amount of money would be great enough by which to mark our appreciation of their work and their patriotism. We hold them in the highest honour. They are people we are very proud of. Their numbers are few and while they are there we should give them the highest honour possible. They fought when times were much worse than they are now. They fought and they struggled, motivated by the highest feelings of patriotism for the freedom of this country. They fought against the British Black and Tans in 1919 and 1920 and certainly those men who still survive must feel very disillusioned by the actions of what one might call the Irish Black and Tans 60 years later, who seem to be hell-bent on bringing about economic ruin and cultural and moral disaster.

An Cathaoirleach

That is not altogether relevant to this Bill.

Mícheál Cranitch

I know it is not relevant, and I am passing on to my final remarks. I am glad of the opportunity to commend and praise the very high standards of our Army. We have a splendid body of men from the highest ranking officer down to the latest recruit. We are very proud of them; they are doing a great job at home and abroad. Their name and their work are very much appreciated by all men of goodwill throughout the world. My wish is that long may they continue to uphold these very fine traditions and standards of efficiency.

Mr. Cooney

I should like to join in the welcome for this Bill. Its main provision is the substantially enhanced pension provisions for the widows and children of members of the Defence Forces who die in the circumstances outlined in section 5. I take the point made by Senator Cranitch that no money can compensate for the loss of a spouse but it is important for the morale of the Army that there would be public recognition by the Government and parliament of concern for the predicament of the survivors of members who would lose their lives in the course of service. That is good for the morale of the Army. It shows that the Government and parliament appreciates the service that is being rendered by these men and the role they play in the affairs of the nation.

It is very important that the morale of the Army would be maintained at as high a level as we can maintain it for two reasons. The efficiency of the Army depends on its state of morale and, arising from that, an efficient and attractive army will attract recruits. If we are to keep up a viable rate of recruiting it is important that the Army would present an attractive career and obviously a factor that would influence people in considering a career is, "What provision will be made for my dependants if anything happened to me?" This Bill fills an important gap here and, of course, that consideration must loom larger and larger in the minds of volunteers with the increasing amount of overseas service as part of the UN peace-keeping operation. The dangers inherent in that service which were highlighted so tragically recently, have not inhibited volunteers from coming forward. In fact, as is traditional, there have been more volunteers than there have been places and we want to ensure that that will continue to be the case. As we establish a stable and mature Army a greater proportion of the members of it will be married. They will be the soldiers with experience and will obviously come for inclusion in the overseas contingents. Should there be any repetition—and we all pray there will not be—of the tragic loss of life which occurred in the Lebanon, understandably there could come domestic pressure on married members. To counter that pressure the provisions in this Bill are very necessary and very welcome.

I should like to echo the tribute Senator Cranitch paid to the members of the Army. They have served this country well. We who were born after the events that brought them into being and know of those events only at second hand are perhaps inclined to underestimate the democratic spirit that has pervaded the members of the Defence Forces in their attitudes towards the institutions of this State. We have to remember that when a Government was established here, there was a lot of exchange of personnel between the military arm of the State and the civil arm of the State. There was a rumbling at one period but it was quickly dealt with by the Executive of the day and the supremacy of civilian and democratic rule was restored. That supremacy was accepted at the time by the vast majority of the members of that fledgling Army, men who had, only a very short time previously, contributed to the victorious and successful completion of a revolution.

We have seen in other countries, after revolutions are completed, the scrabble for power and loot that takes place afterwards, how so frequently military men forget their purely military role and find themselves in the forefront of that scrabble. We were spared anything of that nature in this country because of the patriotism of those who served in the Army and their recognition of their role in a democratic State. Likewise too, when there was a change of Government—and that was a traumatic experience for many people in 1932, having regard to the events of just ten years before that—there was anxiety as to how the Army would react to that change and the consequences and emotive implications of it. Again one must pay tribute to the patriotic democracy of the officers and men of the Army for the way in which they accepted that democratic change.

It is right that these things should be said in the context of this Bill which is providing for enhanced conditions of service for the successors of that Army. An army is a continuous thing and the morale, standards, spirit and ésprit de corps have to exist all the time and in so far they exist today they are inspired from those days of the past. In so far as we, of our time, can provide for the future we do that in legislation such as this.

I have a number of points to make which might be more proper to keep for Committee Stage, but I will mention one or two because they are of general application. The first is with regard to the circumstances when the allowances provided for in section 5 can be paid, and as provided by section 5 they are when the member of the Defence Forces is killed in the course of his duty or receives a wound and dies within a certain time thereafter in circumstances attributable solely to the wound. A number of points arise from that. Should we extend those provisions and include a third situation where the member contracts a disease attributable to such service whilst serving in the forces? What puts that into my mind is that there may be for men serving at home or, more particularly, abroad, circumstances where they may be more prone or liable to contract a disease. One example is the danger of being bitten by a rabid dog. That may have a slight overtone to it that may suggest that it is unreal, but members of the Defence Forces serving in the Middle East have had that experience and have had to endure the treatment that such a bite necessitates. They were lucky enough to be able to receive the treatment and did not contract any disease as a result, but treatment might not be readily available and such an incident could have fatal results. I mention that as one example of how a member on foreign service could contract a disease as opposed to what is provided for in the Bill, a wound. There is, obviously, a distinction. The Minister should consider broadly in section 5 including a third consequence, namely disease. If a soldier contracts tuberculosis, for example, and can show that it was due to his service that he contracted it and that if he had been in civilian employment the exigencies of that employment would not have been likely to lead to it as the exigencies of military service, we should look to compensate him for that in the same way as we would compensate a person who receives a wound. I mention these for the Minister's consideration and I would be glad to have his views when he is replying to this Stage.

The other point I want to make with regard to section 5 is that the commencement of its provisions go back to some time in 1975. While I appreciate that there has to be a commencing date and that we cannot allow the Bill to be open-ended, so to speak, in retrospect, I would be glad to know why 1975 was picked as the starting year. A more appropriate starting point might be the first year that our troops went on overseas service with the United Nations. One obviously could not go back to the Civil War and reward the veterans or dependants of veterans of the national Army, much as they might deserve to be rewarded. It would be going back too far. It could provoke a claim by dependants of irregulars who might have lost their lives in that conflict. Likewise to go back to the Emergency would involve administrative difficulties also. There has to be a starting date and I suggest to the Minister that the proper starting date would be the commencement of overseas service with the United Nations.

I am happy with the provision in section 5 (1) (b) where the entitlement arises if the death occurs within four years after the deceased receives his wound because immediately it brings to mind what happens in the case of the unfortunate men who died four years and one month after. Again, it is necessary to have a time limit on the State's liability but there should be discretion given to the Minister to ignore that time limit in circumstances where he deems it would be just to do so. Absolute time limits can lead to injustice. The Minister in another welcome provision in the Bill recognises this when he takes discretion to ignore failure to observe time limits for making certain applications. He has recognised that application has not been made because people were not aware of time limits and have lost benefits as a result and, obviously, he is convinced that hardship has resulted. He is taking a discretion now in this Bill to ignore those time limits and admit late claims. In another part of the Bill he has abolished time limits altogether for some other claims. To follow that line of thought he should give himself discretion in section 5 (1) (b) not to be bound by the strict four-year period. How were four years arrived at? Was it thrown into discussion and somebody said three years, somebody else said five years and some said, "Look, let us settle for four years"? It is very difficult to arrive at a time limit in the circumstances of that paragraph. The difficulties of arriving at a satisfactory time limit can be resolved only by the Minister taking discretion. I suggest that he should do that and I should be glad to have his views when he is replying on Second Stage.

I am glad to note from his Second Stage speech that he intends to publicise the new provision of section 6 which waives the existing time limits. Many people throughout the country may have given up any thought of claiming what they were entitled to because they were out in time and they should be sought out specifically where there is any record in the Department, and a lot of publicity should be given to the changes. I suggest to the Minister that in his publicity he might give particular attention to the local newspapers circulating in areas where there are garrisons, for example, Galway, Athlone, Longford, and where there are likely to be widows and dependants of soldiers who would be entitled to claim under section 6.

In conclusion I want to repeat my welcome for the Bill and I hope the number of occasions on which the benefits of section 5 will arise will be few and far between. One last point occurs to me. The Bill is drawn up entirely on the basis that the married officer or married soldier who loses his life will be male. We have now introduced women into the Army and I would imagine that under the equality legislation the provisions will have to apply equally to the spouse of a female officer who might lose her life in the circumstances set out in the Bill.

Ruairí Brugha

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. This Bill is particularly welcome. There are many improvements and corrections included in the Bill of what people would see as something in the nature of injustices. The removal of the time limit on applications is particularly good where people, because of lack of knowledge, did not make their application in time. Also to be welcomed are the new provisions applying to the widows and children of personnel killed on duty here or abroad. These provisions are just and fair. The widow of an officer or ordinary rank will receive 50 per cent of his pay and where there are children the first two children bring it to a total of 90 per cent. What should be emphasised here is that side by side with these payments to the widow for herself and her children are the social welfare payments applicable to any widow and children of any ordinary employed worker. This brings the payment to the widows and children of the unfortunate men who died in the tragedy in the Middle East to virtually 100 per cent of the ordinary pay. Every Member of the House here will welcome these provisions as being just and fair.

Senators said that no rewards can be too high, and I am inclined to agree, but, to be fair and just to those who put their lives at risk, it is something worth doing. I welcome also the special allowance referred to by the Minister, dating from 1 July 1980. What is open to the not very great number who took part in the War of Independence but never sought pensions and who have the appropriate medals? I recently came across a few cases of widows whose husbands had fought in the War of Independence because it was their patriotic duty and did not do it for money, and therefore, did not look for pensions. In some of these cases the widow may be living on the means test assistance allowance and nothing else. I refer to that particularly because I welcomed earlier the removal of the prohibition because of failure to apply in the case of the ordinary services. How does a person in this category fit in? There are not many of them, I confess I am ignorant of what happens in those cases. What provision can be made by the Minister?

As I said earlier, I welcome the provisions in this Bill. They clear up many problems going back over the years which one found difficult to justify.

Professor Keating

I will be very brief, but I want to add my voice to those Senators who have welcomed the Bill. I want to make a few comments on points already made. Like other speakers I had the good fortune of encountering Irish Army personnel, not simply in Ireland but in other parts of the world. I have been struck, as others have been struck, by the very high quality of the Irish Army. A key to that is a very interesting thing I heard Senator Cooney say a few minutes ago when he referred to the democratic spirit in the Irish Army. We know its origin recently and in the struggle for independence. The attitudes of that time I am glad permeated very much. It is invidious perhaps to make comparisons and I will not mention other nations but I know of other nations from direct experience in which officer corps seem to be a parking place for deliquent younger sons and uneducatable young sons of well to do people both in town and country. Nothing could be further from the situation in the Irish Army. Because of the democratic spirit of the Army, because of the nature of its origins, because of its relationship to the whole people, it is able to recruit officers and men of very high quality indeed.

I would also like to record my pleasure at the obvious excellence of the internal educational mechanisms, because one is not just struck with the personal quality, moral quality, the native intellectual quality, but also the quality of training. If one considers things like the Army Air Corps, the input into our level of technological knowledge through the whole population by ex-Army personnel—I used the example of the Air Corps as highly technological—is extremely valuable in our whole national development.

There is one point to which I want to refer. We fear the appropriateness of this Bill because we feel nationally the trauma of seeing our soldiers die in South Lebanon. That gives it an appropriateness. I do not want to discuss a very complex and sensitive situation in detail. We should let our soldiers know from all sides of both Houses that we are proud of them. We should let them know too, how much we appreciate the desperate delicacy of their situation, and how brilliantly they are discharging their responsibilities. One can think back to the Congo and to Cyprus and now one thinks of South Lebanon.

It is a matter of great pride for this country that we are acceptable in any circumstances of strife and such has been the—I cannot use a word less than brilliance—brillance of Army leadership in these situations, such has been their delicacy of understanding in complex situations, that they have acquitted themselves magnificently over and over again.

Senator Cranitch quoted the famous phrase about laying down one's life for one's friend—greater love than this no man has than that he should lay down his life for his friend, and he added, and for his enemies too. Our people died in South Lebanon for both. I do not want to make this contentious, and I do not know how rigorously we ought to look at those words. It seems that they are faced with two exceedingly difficult circumstances. One is that in an ordinary confrontational way between two lots of soldiers, both sides can have at each other with some semblance of equality, but our people cannot reply to the aggression on them, and have been showing very extraordinary and magnificant restraint. In that sense, there is, on the one hand, aggression against people and, on the other hand, there is the refusal to hit back in any simplistic way.

Secondly, surely the whole difficulty that makes the situation so admirable on the part of our soldiers is that they are not friends or enemies. There are persons in conflict. We have never identified with either side. I say that because it seems to me that with the history, the democratic spirit which Senator Cooney made reference to, I hope that whoever they are, regardless of ethnic origin or religion or anything else, our tendency in seeking to intervene in disputes, or being asked by international agencies to intervene in disputes, will be to rally to the disadvantaged and the oppressed, whoever they are, and the disadvantage and oppressed vary from one circumstance to another and from one time to another.

I cannot help noting—and here I will simply make the observation and not elaborate on it—that there are approximately as many Palestinians as there are Israeli Jews and that as far as the peaceful settlement in Israel/South Lebanon/the West Bank, is concerned the world's wishes and needs can only be attained on the basis of security and equality for both sides. It is precisely because of that sort of neutrality, of seeing the rights and wrongs of both sides, of identifying with the oppressed whoever they are, and because of the history of our Army and the nature of its relationship to our whole people and our whole national movement, that our Army is particularly good at this. If we express pride in them, it is pride for their bravery, pride for their calm in exceedingly difficult and delicate circumstances, but also pride for the moral and intellectual qualities that are able to distinguish a correct role in a very complicated circumstance. They are serving us very well and anything we can do in terms of conditions of employment and in terms, specifically of what this Bill does, of pensions for widows and dependants is done wholeheartedly and with admiration, and we can say, is done with unanimity.

Mr. Mulcahy

Cuirim fáilte mór roimh an mBille seo. Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil an Roinn Cosanta agus an t-Aire ag tabhairt an Bhille seo ar aghaidh chun socrú maith a dhéanamh i gcomhair na saighdiúirí Éireannacha atá ag déanamh obair dian, dainséarach, go mór mhór le déanaí.

This Bill introduces measures which are to be highly commended. I have one suggestion which might carry recognition for the work our soldiers do and the service they give. Other speakers commended our Army for the way they carry out their duties so I will not elaborate on that point. I would like to say something about the context in which members of the Army could lose their lives, or ways in which they could be affected adversely.

There is a very understandable tendency for people to think of places like the Lebanon as being at the other side of the world, very divorced from everyday life and ordinary domestic circumstances. I had the opportunity of visiting our soldiers in Southern Lebanon, staying with them and sharing headquarters with them. It brings the situation home to you in a way that just reading about it could not do. For instance the short wave transmitter-receiver system in McKee Barracks is in contact with Southern Lebanon every morning and they get a run down on what happened the previous day. There are people in McKee Barracks who are in immediate contact and feel the pressures the soldiers are under. Recently the Minister was standing by when the pressure was on. In the Lebanon in the town of Brachid there is an old school occupied by the Irish soldiers. At nighttime it is a look-out point. I was mad enough to go on the roof of this school with the sentry and was shown how to use an infra-red scanner. This scanner lit up the whole countryside and I could see into the various fields and marvelled at the technology, but it suddenly struck me that somebody out there probably was using one looking at me. I do not mind telling you I got down quickly off the roof. That brought it home to me that the Irish soldier on sentry duty was continually in that exposed position. We are talking about recognising this type of service. I wanted to put it in that context.

I will give another example. Standing in the camp beyond Shakra talking with a son of a Member of the Oireachtas who was serving there, suddenly there was a thunderous roar of murderous missiles launched from the Israeli side. Again it came home to me that there were our soldiers in the middle of this area and these shells whizzing overhead. I could not get out of the place fast enough. That is what our soldiers are up against. This Bill is recognising this in a very special way and it is recognising that if in those circumstances our citizens lose their lives their dependants have to be looked after.

This is something the House has to recognise in public, as Senator Keating said. We are talking about our citizens—Private Stephen Griffin, Private Thomas Barrett and Private Derek Smallhorne, all Irishmen who recently lost their lives in most tragic circumstances. What gets my goat is to see accounts in the media, Zionist-dominated, for instance, comparing the circumstances of the death of Lord Mountbatten to the death of the soldiers in the Lebannon. I am not going to elaborate on this point in case the Chair is getting worried, but it is something that we in the Upper House must recognise, what our citizens are subjected to in terms of media coverage. We must recognise this for what it is. We must speak out and protect our soldiers who are caught up in the complexities of a very difficult political struggle.

Senator Keating brilliantly outlined how sensitive this is without getting too deeply involved. This is not a Bill for that, even though at some stage I would like the opportunity to elaborate on that particular situation. Our soldiers find themselves not only carrying out a military duty but, in some way they are carrying out a social political duty. Some people may have seen the picture and report in the Daily Mirror of soldiers looking after children and families in some of the villages and the young woman saying the only way she was able to make ends meet was with the help she was getting from the Irish soldiers. We must recognise that as well. It is not all done from behind the gun; it is also done from the heart, and from experience. The Irish soldier, very often a married man, is able to provide care and understanding in countries blighted by these problems.

I will not go any further than to paint just one or two pictures of that kind to put this in context and also to appeal to the Minister to do something for those who are alive, as well as for those who might be killed. For instance, he might review the allowances to the soldiers serving abroad and ensure that they keep in line with inflation.

I would suggest another approach that might be used. The Minister might be able to persuade other Departments to do something about this. I have found in my clinics in Dublin that the wives of the soldiers very often have housing difficulties. The Minister should try to prevail on the local authorities to put soldiers who have to serve abroad in a special category for local authority houses. I do not see any reason why that could not be done, and it would help the families of these men. Very often these women are very concerned and worried about the welfare of their husbands and are living in circumstances we do not like to see them in. I know of many instances of this kind. I would ask the Minister to use his influence, through the Minister for the Environment, with the local authorities to put the soldiers serving abroad in a special category for local authority houses.

Tá mé an-shásta go raibh seans agam cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar ár Arm náisiúnta, Arm atá ag tabhairt brat na hÉireann thar lear agus atá ag cur ainm na tíre go h-árd sna nuachtáin timpeall an domhain go léir.

We are all extremely proud of them and, we should do everything we can to recognise what they are doing by any rewards that can be made available through the State.

Mr. Markey

This is very necessary legislation. There is sadness that this legislation, which guarantees allowances to the widows of soldiers killed in the course of duty, should have to come before us. but it is necessary for three reasons.

First, the circumstances have completely changed in the past decade or two, and certainly since our first input into foreign activities for our soldiers in the Congo back in 1960. At one time the Army was regarded as the Cinderella of the State armed services. The Army was looked on as a place in which the less fortunate members of society take refuge unless they had a vocation to join.

Now the Army has become a very important arm of Government services, particularly in its activities abroad where the presence, the behaviour and performance of our troops can bring a certain amount of credit and worthy reputation to the Government and to this country.

We must remember we never had conscription we always relied on voluntary membership of the ranks. Now it is necessary for us to give these people proper conditions which will be on a par with conditions in civil life. At this stage one might hesitate to say that a 50 per cent pension to a widow was appropriate. In certain civic positions there are pensions far in excess of that. Some superannuation schemes give to widows two-third pensions plus a nice lump sum. We could argue at length about whether 50 per cent is appropriate, or whether the four year period cut-off point is appropriate. This legislation we see a considerable advance on what was there before. Section 7 gives the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence power to change the regulations in due course and then bring the proposed regulation change before this House. This is a most worthy provision.

The second reason why I say this legislation is necessary is that soldiers today can see at first hand experience what civilians are able to enjoy. We have our soldiers standing on the streets guarding banks. They are seen much more in our towns and cities, on our streets and in the countryside than ever before. They can see at first hand how a person who remained in civilian life has better conditions that he enjoyed ten, 15 or 20 years ago. It is only right that the Government should ensure that our soldiers have very good conditions. If they are not on a par at present with civilians, they should reach that stage as soon as possible.

Last week on the invitation of the Minister I had the opportunity of seeing new billets in Gormanstown Camp, County Meath. Three years earlier new billets were opened in Dundalk, County Louth. These are very fine buildings but because of their very impressive structure they stand out in vivid contrast, indeed harsh contrast, to the billets which the soldiers will still have to enjoy in the same camp area because of the lack of available modern accommodation. It is necessary that we bring the conditions of the soldiers in barrack life—where they live, where they have recreational facilities—as quickly as possible to a standard they could enjoy in civilian life.

The third reason is that our soldiers have always voluntarily joined the Army. We never had conscription. There never has been any form of compulsion, apart maybe from an occasional instance where a district justice might give a nice hint to some young person who has infringed various laws, that perhaps he should take himself into the Army for a period to learn discipline. People who voluntarily join the Army should be given every opportunity to enjoy the service for as long as they serve, be it five years, ten years or for whatever term.

We cannot look at this legislation without remembering the deaths of our soldiers in far-off fields. When the Government make their decision to send our Defence Force personnel abroad, I think this is a model of a democratic Government functioning. It is a pity that people who are more fortunate, but who criticise the Government's decision to send troops to foreign countries, would not take a leaf out of the way in which our Defence Forces have always gone when the Government make a decision that they should serve in far-off fields.

It is necessary that the Government, in facing up to a request from the United Nations to send some of our forces abroad, should not act, as it were, willy-nilly in response to such a request without adequately assessing the situation as it pertains at that particular time. This country, due to its history, is in a rather unique position to answer a request for its Defence Forces to serve abroad but I believe that the timing is very important in regard to a Government decision as to whether our forces should serve in response to such a request. It may be appropriate for us to send our Defence Forces abroad now but it may not be appropriate in three months time. We have to look at this thing in a wider context than perhaps just answering a request from the United Nations. I do not believe that we would suffer as a result of our saying to the United Nations that we did not regard it as appropriate at the present time that our forces should spend time abroad. The United Nations know that they can approach us in 12 months' time or two years with a request when we might be able to take it up.

Likewise, I believe that it is important for Oireachtas Members, more than anybody else in the State, to look at any place abroad where soldiers may well be asked to go. Unhesitatingly I say that I was disappointed at what I would regard as Oireachtas Members on both sides of the House in the past six months allowing themselves to be used to an extent by one side or the other in the Middle East problem. I believe that Oireachtas Members, more than anybody else, should, as I ask the Government to do, assess the situation as it exists in any of these foreign fields of operations and weigh up the pros and cons of whether they should just stay quiet for a while until things settle down.

We are sending young men abroad in a situation where they will have to operate with one arm tied behind their back. If one converses with any of the soldiers who have returned from a period of service in the Lebanon one will find this continuing tale of frustration on their part. I do not believe the situation is helped in any way by Oireachtas Members perhaps allowing themselves to be used for publicity purposes by one side or the other, and there are always two sides to any problem abroad. I think we have to be careful if only from the viewpoint of our soldiers. They take a calculated risk in going out there in the first instance—I believe it is a voluntary action on their part as to whether they go, but we know what "voluntary" means if the person is in the Army and he is asked to volunteer for foreign service. I think very few of them would refuse such a request.

In our Defence Forces we have a very good service which we should build up and on which we should bestow conditions appropriate to what those young men can experience in civilian life. If they remained in civilian life they would not be faced with a situation where they could not have a reasonable standard of living. Social welfare conditions at present are reasonably appropriate and would give them such a standard. Instead, they opt to join our Defence Forces and I believe without any hesitation that we should help them in every way possible.

I know that semi-State bodies from time to time extend invitations to Members of the Oireachtas to visit their various plants or installations or whatever it might be. I suggest to the Government that the various military barracks throughout this country should extend invitations to the Oireachtas Members, and indeed local authority members as well, to go on a day visit and see our Defence Force members in training, doing drill and generally see the conditions under which they are operating. I think everybody who went on such a visit would come away with a far greater understanding and appreciation of what our soldiers are doing for us.

I refer the Minister to the wording of the Bill which states, "widows and children of military personnel who are killed in the course of duty or who die from a wound sustained in the course of duty". Does the course of duty just apply to foreign operations? What will happen in the case of a soldier who suffers a serious wound while training in his own home barracks and dies within the four year period? I ask the Minister for clarification of that point.

Secondly, I believe some provision should be written into the Bill as regards covering other situations. For instance, in the course of the Second World War there were very many deaths, not of our soldiers, fortunately, but of soldiers of other nations, from malaria and other diseases. If we send young men to places like the Middle East, and perhaps we will even be sending them farther afield in the years to come, they may well be subjected to certain diseases endemic to those areas that may not yet be conquered by the medical people. It would behove us to write something into the Bill whereby soldiers who die as a result of such diseases, whatever they may be, would qualify as regards pension entitlements to their widows.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I should like to join in welcoming the Bill. I only want to make one point which is relevant to section 5 (1) (b). I think the point has already been made by Senator Cooney who suggested the possible extension of the four year period. I would suggest to the Minister that there ought not to be a limitation at all. I have had to handle an unfortunate case for somebody who responded to the call in the 1914-1918 war and who died very many years afterwards as a result of wounds caused during the war and the operative machinery made it possible to prove that his death was attributable solely to these wounds. I do not know why a limit is imposed now; in view of the advances in medical science in keeping people alive, time limits may become less appropriate. I would have thought it necessary that the proposed paying authority should be informed of the nature of the wound and the medical history and be in a position obviously to guard against bogus claims coming very many years after. Four years seems such a short period, alas, nowadays. I do not know whether the Minister has power under the regulations to extend that period.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Faulkner)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí a labhair ar an mBille seo. Tá sé soiléir go dtuigeann siad an tábhacht atá ag baint leis agus fosta go aontaíonn siad liom go bhfuil téarmaí an Bhille seo fiúntach agus tábhachtach. Ba mhaith liom fosta buíochas a ghabháil dóibh as ucht an méid adúirt siad faoi Arm na hÉireann.

I would like to thank Senators for their constructive and helpful contributions to the debate on this Bill. I am glad that they welcome it and share my opinion that it is a very worthwhile measure. I wish also to express appreciation for the very well-deserved tributes which have been paid to the Defence Forces and in particular to their outstanding contribution over the years to the cause of international peace with the United Nations.

The most significant provisions of this Bill relate to benefits for dependants, that is for widows and children. For the first time, the widows or special allowance holders are being granted allowances under the Acts. This is being done in accordance with the budget statement of last February. This is indeed a very welcome development. Senator Governey and, indeed, a number of other Senators, raised the possibility of abolishing the time limit of four years in the case of death attributable solely to wounds. I have considered this particular matter. In the first place, for the purpose of the Bill it is necessary to relate the death to the wound. It will be agreed that the further removed in time the death is from the occasion of the wound, the more difficult it is to establish its attributability.

It is, however, appropriate to look at this in a broader context. The Defence Forces pension schemes and the Army Pensions Acts have been evolving over the years. The new provisions represent a very worthwhile development in the evolution of the superannuation and other provisions. There is provision in the Acts for the payment of other benefits to a widow of a pensioner who was seriously disabled. In the case of a widow with three children benefit could amount to two-thirds of pay. To that extent the new allowance may be said to be complementary to the existing allowance. While it would supplant the existing allowances, being more favourable in the circumstances specified in the section it is intended essentially to cover a case where the husband is killed on duty whether at home or abroad and it does that. The overall provision is, I would suggest, a very worthwhile one. It is framed in a reasonable way, particularly when looked at in the wider context of the other provisions of the Act. I would ask the House to accept it. I am quite confident that if the need arises in the future to modify the provision it will be modified. Another matter raised by Senator Governey was whether the allowance would be increased in the future. It can be taken that it will be treated in the same way as other superannuation benefits and allowances which are increased annually.

The question of disease was raised by Senator Cooney and Senator Markey. The disease pensions for former members' of the Defence Forces are payable in respect of disease attributable to (i) the emergency period and (ii) service with a United Nations force. These relate to pensions payable to the personnel themselves. I would point out further that if the degree of disablement is 50 per cent or more, then the widow automatically gets an allowance for herself and her children.

With regard to the effective date of the new allowance, that is 1 March 1975, the position is that allowances are already payable under the 1927 Act. The troops first went abroad in 1960 and they were covered by the 1927 Act. Making it effective from 1975 is to give it quite a considerable degree of retrospection and I do not think I did too badly in that respect.

Senator Brugha referred to those who had medals and who did not make applications for pensions. The point is that the allowance of £185 a year provided for a widow in this Bill flows from the fact that her husband had a special allowance. Anybody who has a duly awarded medal can apply for a special allowance. Senator Mulcahy suggested that the local authorities be requested to help out in respect of soldiers who are looking for houses. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that local authorities have been exceptionally helpful in this matter and I would like to express my appreciation of that. Senator Markey raised the point as to whether expression "in the course of his duty" would include a soldier who was wounded in training and who died later or was killed in training. The answer is yes.

I would like to thank Senators for their very helpful response to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.