Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 12



I beg to move:—

In Section 1, page 2, after the word "in" in line 15, to insert the words "or with."

I am sorry the President would not accept my amendment, with the result that I have to divide the Dáil on it. The object of this amendment is to cover the case of Volunteers who were on active service in 1916, right through the Black and Tan period, and who were mobilised and turned into the city barracks where they did duty for a month or two. When the recruits came in these men were sent back to their areas and worked there as intelligence officers. It is very unfair that they are to be cut out of the benefits of the Bill.

I think this amendment does not come within the terms of the Money Resolution nor within the title. Where persons rendered service as described by Deputy McCarthy, they are covered, as far as it is possible to cover them, within the principles under which this Bill is presented to the Dáil, that is, service in the National Forces, by amendment No. 3. Deputy McCarthy's amendment would open a door which we could not possibly close. In the circumstances, I find that it would necessitate the amending of the Money Resolution and the amending of the title, and it might involve expenditure not contemplated, and which, in the circumstances, we could not justify. The main purpose of this Bill is to give fair compensation to persons who have had service with the National Forces, the National Army or Defence Forces, taking these as terms descriptive of the Defence Forces of the State. In these cases where there has been service in particular forces by the persons mentioned by Deputy McCarthy, we have covered them, in so far as they can be covered, within the terms of the statement I made on the Second Reading.

Will the President say if the cases I brought up will be covered by Amendment No. 3?

I am not in a position to answer any general question like that. I am in a position to say that, so far as the amendment proposed by Deputy McCarthy is concerned, the cases he has mentioned (bona fide cases of service) are covered by amendment 3, but are not covered to the extent that Deputy McCarthy's amendment, if it were in order, and within the terms of the Money Resolution and title of the Bill would cover them.

The amendment is outside the Money Resolution, but I thought an opportunity would be given on a new Money Resolution to discuss it. I will allow a certain amount of discussion. I cannot put this amendment as it is not within the terms of the Resolution.

Do you rule that my amendment is not in order?

Yes. It would be impossible to accept the amendment, as the Money Resolution states:—

That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas of any pensions payable under authority of any Act of the present session to provide for the payment of military service pensions to certain members and former members of the National Forces and the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann.

That point arose before. People who served "with" are not members. They must have served "in" to be members, I take it. Instead of a new Money Resolution amendment No. 3 is being introduced to cover the Criminal Investigation Department and the Protective Forces who were armed forces. Without an amendment of the Money Resolution, I am afraid amendment No. 1 could not be put.

I take it that the President has broken a definite promise which was given on the last occasion. I think I asked that a promise would be given that the Money Resolution would cover amendment No. 1 in Deputy McCarthy's name, and which I moved on that occasion.

The Money Resolution does not define, nor attempt to define, "National Forces." Is it then permissible that the Bill that is to be discussed may itself define what is meant by the term "National Forces?"

The term "National Forces" was defined in the Bill originally by a reference to the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act. I do not think it was a correct reference. Is there any statutory definition of the words, "National Forces"? If not, the Bill itself can define what "National Forces" means, after the words "National Forces" have been used in the Money Resolution, but that still leaves the point whether a member of the National Forces can be defined so as to include persons who actually were not in the Forces.

This seems to me to be a rather important matter. There are people who worked all along from 1916, and some from 1906, who had no idea of joining the Army when the Treaty was signed. They wanted to go back to their ordinary work, but when the fighting broke out and the safety of the State was threatened, a lot of these people came in and took their places with the National Army during the few months that fighting was acute. As Deputy McCarthy stated, when the recruits came in these men went back to their ordinary work. I think that these men should all be taken as having served in the National Army, but, at the time, and the members of the Government should be well aware of it, there was no machinery and there was no register. These men mostly served without pay, served when the fight was on, and went back to their work when the fight was over, and it is to these men who came in when men were wanted and without payment that you owe your existence as a Parliament.

The Deputy is going outside any explanation I made of this measure. I stated that this measure proposed to pay compensation to those who had sustained loss by reason of their services in the National Forces of the country, taking the words "National Forces" as covering all the forces operating under the National Authority from 1916 on. The Deputy states that there are certain cases in which persons rendered services at a particular time and went back to their work. There was no interruption in the ordinary sphere of the civil activity in these persons within the scope of this measure would be to give payment for services rendered. That was not the scope of this measure, nor could it be conceived under the terms of the Bill. But I propose according to amendment No. 3, an official amendment, that in a case of persons serving in the Armed Forces maintained by the Provisional Government, or the Government of Saorstát Eireann, that they are covered where bona fide service was rendered. But the door is not open so wide as to admit a person who had served perhaps as a barber or a cook or a waiter, or, perhaps, in the pay office in a civil capacity. It was never intended that these particular persons should be included, and to do so would necessitate an alteration in the Money Resolution. I have covered the alteration that is necessary in the Money Resolution by the alteration in the description of National Forces, and to that extent I do disagree with the mild description of Deputy McGrath that I have not kept my promise.

If the Minister would definitely state now what he means by "maintained" he would end this matter. I would like to point out to him in connection with his remarks regarding the individual mentioned by Deputy McGarry that he is on the wrong track. He must be aware of the fact that there are men working to-day who were not in the National Forces but who can claim legitimately to have suffered very severely as a result of the action they took in the past. I need only point to civil servants. What has happened to the men who were out in 1916 and lost their jobs? Many of them have gone back to the very same positions that they held. I grant you that they have got service for the years that they were out. That is a great deal to give them. They were fighting for the nation at the time and they simply got that service. They are in your own service and they have really lost as a result of fighting for the nation in this way, that men who were lower than they at the beginning have got their positions and are now their bosses, so that what Deputy McGarry said is perfectly correct. You have men who went back to their work and who in June and July, 1922, certainly suffered very severely as a result of their participation in the fight. If the President would state definitely what is meant I think he will relieve some of our feelings. I can tell the President and the Dáil that at the time the trouble started in June, 1922, there are definite registers in existence of the men who obeyed the order to turn out.

What is your trouble in that case?

If the President or the Military authorities are not in a position to know at present it is through their slackness. They are in existence. That I can tell the President, if he does not know it already.

Then what is your trouble?

We want to know definitely. If these people did not go in and actually live in the barracks they might be ruled out by some of the gentlemen who will form this tribunal.

I think it is on the Deputy to prove the word "maintained" does not cover what he means.

Let us have no hedging on it. I will give the Minister a case of a Volunteer whom he knows very well. Will he tell the Dáil now that that Volunteer will come under amendment 3?

I suggest that he should tell us the name first.

He is a Volunteer well known to the President. He served in 1916, and he served right through against the Tans. He was mobilised and went into Griffith Barracks, served for three weeks there, and served for three weeks in the City Hall. An officer said to him he had better not join the Army, and said: "Go back to your work and do I.O." He did that, and the President is well aware of that case. I want to know is such a case covered under amendment 3. That is a fair question.

I cannot say definitely. I would say, on the facts of the case, that I think so, but I do not think the information is enough and I do not think it is a fair question to ask now. If the Deputy gave me the case yesterday I could have inquired since.

With all due respect, I did mention the case to the President.

You did to-day.

I say to the House that there were irregularities in the other Pensions Bill and we ought not to make them in this. If this Bill goes through Deputies will be flooded with letters from real genuine cases that ought to have been covered by the Bill. When the Bill is before the Dáil it is the time to do it.

There seem to be two points about "in or with." I do not know if Deputy McCarthy adverts to it. He wants to insert the words "or with" in line 15. I think the amendment comes down to the words "National Forces," and it is quite in order because the Money Resolution is not concerned with it. There are two different things. There is "in or with" certain bodies in pre-Truce periods, or in the National Forces after the Treaty.

Until it comes down to the National Forces it is of no value from our point of view.

I do not know whether Deputy McCarthy had any interest in both points.

I have not. It was in order when I first moved it in Committee.

One does not want to interfere in this measure. We have been given very little information about it, but it appears to me that we are losing sight of a very important factor. This Bill throws a very considerable burden on the taxpayers. The only information that we have been given about it is that it will probably amount to something like £100,000 per annum. I do not know what the amendments already passed will mean, but for some weeks past we have been considering this question of pensions and allowances to soldiers. Under another Act we have been considering pensions to policemen, and under a third Act we have been considering pensions and gratuities to local officers. We have had a number of Bills of this kind. It is necessary to warn the Government that these pensions and gratuities have got to be met by the taxpayer. The taxpayer at the moment is called upon to bear a burden that he is almost unable to carry, and still from day to day that burden on the back of the taxpayer is being increased, and I think it is necessary at this stage to warn the Government of the amount of the responsibility they are placing on the backs of the taxpayers. That has been pointed out on more than one occasion, and it is necessary for those who have to bear the burden to call attention to it and to say that the time has arrived when a halt should be called in these matters. It is all very well for the Dáil to grant freely gratuities, pensions, and payments of that character. These burdens, as I say, have to be met out of the finances of the country. Consideration ought to be given to that aspect of the question when we are considering all aspects of it.

I think Deputy Good should reserve that speech for the consideration of the Bill generally.

It is strange that the Deputy who has just sat down did not enter a similar remonstrance when it was a question of pensions and allowances to those who refused to serve under the Saorstát. The men who are being pensioned under this measure have done well for the nation, and it is very little to pay for bringing the nation to freedom. There is another point that I would wish to refer to before we pass on from this amendment. The President said that the object of this measure was to make some kind of provision for those whose lives have been interrupted during the struggle and who are serving under the National Authorities since 1916. The construction that has been put on that is that it simply applies to men. I want to know whether the term "person" that has been used so often also includes women who have given service in this respect and whose lives have been interrupted and many of whose prospects in life have been broken in consequence of this. I think it would be well we should know that before we pass on. There would not be many who would be affected or who would come within the provisions of the Bill, but if there were any, I think it well that we should have that explained.

The word "person" refers to males. It is up to the bachelors of the country to afford succour to the others.

Are we discussing the amendment with a view to its being put, or is this a general discussion, because if there is to be a division I would like to say something.

We are not discussing this amendment with a view to its being put. It cannot be put, but in view of the peculiar circumstances, I have allowed a certain discussion upon it.

Amendment not moved.

I move:—

In Section 1, page 2, line 19, before the word "Hibernian" to insert the words "body known as the."

Amendment agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 1, to delete lines 29 and 30, and substitute therefor the words "the expression `National Forces' means and includes all armed forces maintained by the Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann."

The effect of that new definition will be that the Criminal Investigation Department, the Protective Corps, and the other Armed Forces which were the subject of a separate amendment before will be covered by this.

This would be the time to get an explanation of the word "maintained." Does that cover any man who was in barracks and received food there? Will he come under the word "maintained"—a man supplied with a rifle or uniform during the period who was not in the Army—will he come under that?

I want to warn two Deputies, Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Johnson, who have amendments 5 and 5 (a) on the paper, that this definition will exclude these amendments automatically.

I was just going to ask that question and to ask whether one may be allowed to amend this amendment—that is to say, to enlarge the definition of "National Forces" to include these elements which are referred to in the subsequent amendments.

Deputies are constantly complaining that they do not get time to consider Bills. Well, I am afraid my position now is that I have not got time to consider this matter very carefully. When this Bill was in Committee, I noticed that in the Money Resolution the words used were "National Forces" and "Defence Forces," and in the Bill itself, in Section 1, line 29, it is stated that the expression "National Forces" shall have the same meaning as in the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923. In that way I thought the words "National Forces" had a statutory definition, but I do not remember at the moment where the definition of the words "National Forces" occurs. What I am called upon to decide is whether you could define "National Forces" in such a way as to include people who were never in them. As a matter of common sense, apart from the Money Resolution, and as this is a form of amendment which would increase the charge I would not like to decide in favour of it unless I can be given very substantial reasons to influence me. The definition "National Forces" is simple in amendment 3, but if we want to define "National Forces" by specifying people who were not in them it would be difficult.

There is more in it than that. I do not think the suggestion of Deputy Johnson can be worked in this case, because this definition of National Forces is really over two Amendments involving a definition of what is "military service." Amendment No. 5 and, therefore, No. 6, refers to certain persons and the circumstances as a result of which these persons can be deemed to have rendered "military service" in the National Forces, so that defining "National Forces" in any kind of way at all cannot affect the matter as long as you also have specified your requirements with regard to military service.

True, but it would be military service in the National Forces. That is what the subsequent amendments endeavour to do. Military service would have to be proved, but it would have to be military service in the "National Forces." The definition as proposed by Deputy Duggan would, of course include any forces which might be maintained by the Provisional Government of the Government of Saorstát Eireann; it might mean any police forces—even if they were armed with sticks or batons. A baton is an armament and a very formidable one in respect to an individual. It seems to me that the difficulty we are in arises from the desire to bring forward a Bill in general terms, that is to say the provisions of a Bill couched in general terms, with the object of including only individuals or groups of individuals. It is an attempt to reconcile what is not easily reconcilable, and to leave out people who, speaking in general terms, ought not to be left out. It is quite clear that the object of the Bill and of this amendment is to give pensions to people who served in the fight of 1916. But, for the purpose of ruling out a considerable element, perhaps the majority, it is only to be granted to those who served in the National Forces subsequent to the setting up of the Provisional Government. Of course we are not attempting to give pensions to those who served in the National Forces, but only to those who served in the National Forces and who also served in the pre-Truce campaign. So that the position is fairly clear. Then we are all aware that there are many of these men, I do not know how many, but there was a considerably number, who gave service in the pre-Truce campaign and suffered considerably, possibly suffered very much more than those who recovered some of their losses through service in the National Forces. Those, of course, are excluded from the Bill even though their non-service in the National Forces was the result of considerations and factors over which they had no control, or in other cases where they were precluded by reason of certain acts which made it impossible for them to serve in the National Forces. Then we are in this dilemmna that men who served up to the date of the Truce were on equal terms with those who are to be included in this Bill. Some were able to go into the National Forces, others no matter how willing and desirous of going into the National Forces, were precluded, partly because of incapacity caused by service in the pre-Truce campaign and partly because they were required for other Government service and were, therefore, advised not to go into the Forces as well as for other causes that have been incidently mentioned in several amendments. It seems to me that the dilemma we are in is in endeavouring to reconcile a general statement to a particular purpose. I am not sure whether we ought not to do very much the same as has been done in the Local Officers' Compensation Bill, and that is to name the person. That would be very much clearer and would be less likely to lead to consequential Bills that will inevitably follow this Bill if it is passed in its present form. I predict that if this Bill is passed in its present form that the amount of agitation and discontent that will be roused will be very widespread.

The words "National Forces" are the words used in the Money Resolution. If there be no definition of "National Forces" available we can make a definition. As the Money Resolution states, pensions shall be payable "to certain members and former members of the National Forces." I think that the word "member" is sufficiently clear in the ordinary way to prevent us from defining them by making people members who were not members, and therefore I rule that amendments 5 and 5A could not be moved if the definition contained in amendment 3 were carried.

I desire to know if the President will answer the question I put to him.

I have explained at some length what was meant by that term "maintained." I am not in a position to give a general statement here by saying whether A, B or C is included, but it is meant to include persons who rendered service, by stating "persons who were maintained by the Forces, or by the Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann." I cannot put down in the Bill the person named by Deputy McCarthy.

Would it include people who served but who were not maintained by the Provisional Government?

What would be the position of a Commandant in the I.R.A. who was not attested in the National Forces but who was still on the active list?

If we are to get nothing except this definition, I want to put before the Dáil what the position will be if this goes through. I want to remind the Dáil of the actual position of the parties to whom I referred. As regards Dublin, I can speak from my own personal knowledge. Let me tell you that there were from three to five hundred men actually called to arms in Dublin, plus the Volunteers who had actually got uniforms on them but were not attached. These two forces between them finished the fight for the time being in Dublin before a single recruit came into the Army. That is a fact that Deputies ought to get into their minds at this stage. If, at a later stage, when this Bill is passed, we find that through the insertion of amendment 3, or through non-definition of what is meant by "maintained," it leads to very serious trouble regarding these men, that will really be the fault of the Government in not being in a position to state definitely what is meant. I have given definite cases of men who actually listed and who rendered good service in that period but who for certain reasons could not join the army. That was the position before a single recruit joined the Army. These people that I refer to stood true to their principles. They numbered several hundred, and they manned the different positions here in the city at that time and beat the Irregulars out of the positions held by the latter. I could give many cases, but take one. Take the case of a Commandant in Dublin who mobilised 100 or 150 men. He was responsible for, perhaps, two or three positions in Dublin, through the man himself was not working at the time. By the merest chance he has since got employment of some kind, but he received no payment for the services he rendered then. By a chance he has got a position since; it may be only a temporary position which may last only a month or two, or at most only two or three years. At the end of that time he may be thrown out of his job, but I have no doubt that we will then have a Government in power that will certainly take up the case of that individual. I think it is well that the Dáil should consider such cases and that the President also should take them into consideration. We are not likely to get any further definition of the word "maintained." The President might state whether his information is such that he can definitely say that these men who rendered service, whether they actually received payment or not, would definitely come under this Bill.

I would like the President to answer a question. The Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, Part IV., Transitory Provisions, states:—"Until the Forces have been established under Section 22 of this Act the provisions hereinafter mentioned shall have effect." Have the Forces been established under the Temporary Provisions Act?

They have not? Well, then, the "National Forces" appear to be defined in this Act. Does the President, as Minister for Finance, think it is good procedure to bring in a Money Resolution mentioning words which are defined in an Act, and to take an amendment in Committee to increase the charge considerably by giving a new definition to these words?

It is not a new definition. As a matter of fact, I understood that the Defences Forces Act would have been passed before this particular Act came along. Now the Defence Forces Act was to deal with a body from a certain date, but there is no definition in respect of the date from the period when the first recruit was enlisted in what is usually known now as the National Army and the date of the passing of the Defence Forces Act. So far as that particular period is concerned, which in a sense covers the period in question, there is little difficulty regarding the exact description. I would say on the matter raised by Deputy McGrath that I am in some doubt whether he meant to bring in the five hundred persons under this Act, who gave two or three weeks or two or three months at a particular time, for a pension. Whether he means to bring in the individual he refers to or whether he means to bring in the list he referred to I do not know. I do not know anything about the individual referred to. His name has not been mentioned, and I am not in a position to carry in my head the list of persons who rendered service. I do say in regard to the lists, "Yes, they would come in." I am not satisfied that he has made the same case in regard to the three, four or five hundred persons he referred to. We intend, as I explained on the Second Reading, to include under this measure some compensation for persons whose lives had been interrupted for a considerable period, who were in the National Army and who had not an opportunity of getting employment—who could not leave the National Army to go out and look for work and who by reason of that fact are now thrown upon an uneconomic, industrial, manufacturing and commercial market, and in respect of whom some compensation has had to be made. But in the other cases, I think the case made here was that we had to compensate persons who had suffered loss. Now the case is made that we must pay persons for service rendered.

May I make a suggestion that would be useful. The word "maintained" seems to be the source of all the trouble, and I suggest that we should delete the words "maintained by" and substitute the words "under the authority of." There is clear control there, and a clearer indication of what is meant than given by the word "maintained."

This amendment is intended to bring in the Criminal Investigation Department, is it not?

That is right.

Well, it must be done in some other way than by the method now proposed. The words "National Forces" remain defined in the Defence Forces Act.

But it has not come into force yet.

Has not the Act come into force yet?

The Defence Forces Act?

I am in the position of Deputies. We are transacting an immense amount of business, and I find it difficult to keep all these things in my head. A Money Resolution is of tremendous importance, and I would rather err on the side of strictness than do something that might be found to be wrong later on.

I am instructed by the draftsman that this is covered in the Money Resolution.

Nobody is competent to instruct the President on this point except myself. The responsibility is mine. I must make the decision myself as to whether a particular amendment in Committee is covered by a Money Resolution or not. There can be no doubt whatever about that. I have my doubts about the method now proposed, and I am going to refuse to accept this amendment. The President's point about the Defence Forces not being established is another reason that impels me to take this course. The Temporary Provisions Act says: "Until the Forces have been established under Section 22 of this Act, the provisions hereinafter mentioned shall have effect." And the next section uses the words, "National Forces"—"the armed forces of the State as at present constituted and existing (hereinafter referred to as the National Forces"). There is no doubt at all that that section refers to the Army and nothing else. It refers to forces under the Minister for Defence.

Precisely, but you lose sight of the fact that there was no statutory authority for the Defence Forces up to the time the Act was passed, and it is in respect of those persons that we are legislating here— persons who would not and could not be regarded as statutory forces from the 1st February, 1922, until the 3rd August, 1923, granting that that was the date of the passing of that Act.

The Minister will recognise that the Oireachtas did insert in that Act certain transitory provisions to deal with the circumstances then prevailing and these transitory provisions dealt with the armed forces raised under the Provisional Government.

I am not concerned whether the armed forces mentioned here had or had not a statutory existence. They had an existence, whether a statutory existence or not is another question. They certainly had an existence, and they certainly had the name National Forces, and in this particular Act—the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act—the words "National Forces" mean quite clearly the Army—the people under the control of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, and they certainly do not mean any police force. The Criminal Investigation Department was under the Minister for Home Affairs. Was not that so at the time?


For part of the time but at one time it was an adjunct of the Army under the Ministry of Defence.

Is it not intended that service in the C.I.D. at any time will be covered?



Would it not destroy the intention if it was found not to cover service under the control of the Minister for Defence?


It would.

It is an extremely bad precedent to define the thing in a Money Resolution and to explain it afterwards, and particularly when the definition is already available. From the point of view of the Minister for Finance that should be very objectionable.

I think you are reading too strictly the Defence Forces Act.

I searched the particular Act and I find the reference to the National Forces in the transitory provisions of that Act.

That is the only place you could find it.

Yes, but it is still to be found, because the Act still runs.

I suggest there is only one way in which the Minister's intention can be brought into operation, and that is by following the procedure that was indicated when we met last day, and that is to get a new Money Resolution.

Might I ask what is the exact meaning of the word "maintain"? Does it mean members of the National Forces who have attested? Because there are any amount of cases of men who served in the early days and who did not attest at all.

Like your own case.

I know numbers of men who served and who did not attest at all.

A new Money Resolution will have to be introduced to cover this point.

I cannot get a new Money Resolution. We will have to drop the Bill in that case.

Could not a supplementary Money Resolution be introduced immediately, or does it require notice? Could it be introduced this evening without notice?

The giving of notice could be waived. Of course the question of notice is one purely for the Dáil. If we do not require notice, notice would not be necessary. The President could produce the Money Resolution perhaps by 6 o'clock this evening if he took the necessary steps.

This amendment is out of order.

Yes, this amendment is out of order. I would like, in addition, to point out that it is impossible really to give proper consideration to matters of this kind when one does not get an opportunity to do so. I have a doubt in the matter, but I think it is preferable not to allow an amendment which seems to be outside the terms of the Money Resolution. I am astonished to find the President, as Acting-Minister for Finance, is not agreeing with that view.

As far as that particular amendment was concerned, I got the legal advice that was available to me, and I was told it was correct, that the amendment was in order.

Unfortunately, it is not a question of law, it is a question of procedure. The President, I am afraid, cannot get advice on that question except from myself or one of my staff.

It is a question of law as to how the National Forces are defined under another portion of the Act.

If the amendment is out of order there is no good in wasting time discussing it.

I would suggest the Bill should be postponed and a new resolution brought in.

We will probably do that after 6 o'clock.

That disposes also of amendments 3, 4, 5 and 5a. Would it not be better to postpone all the amendments for the new Money Resolution?

I do not think so.

I think amendment 6, standing in the name of Deputy McCarthy, is in the same category as the others; and I rule it out of order.

I move amendment 7, which reads:—

In Section 4 (1), line 4, page 4, after the figures "1924" to insert the words "or the day of his discharge from the National Forces or the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann whichever of those days shall be the later."

The effect of that is that the pension will be payable as from 1st October, 1924, or date of discharge from the Army whichever shall be the later date.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

I move amendment 8:—

In Section 8 (1), line 9, after the word "moneys" to insert the words "whether provided by the Oireachtas or out of the Central Fund or by means of the poor rate or any other rate imposed by a local authority."

I think we have got an assurance from the Minister that this was to be public money, without any question that public monies include monies derived from the poor rate. Is not that so?

That is not the case.

I understood that I met Deputy Johnson's contention by suggesting this particular terminology. I pointed out that a statutory body in that case might include the College of Surgeons. I do not know whether it would mean Trinity College or any institution like that.

Amendment put and agreed to.
In the Second Schedule, immediately after the word "Act" in line 26, page 7, to insert the following:—"Where an applicant in respect of whom a certificate of military service has been issued is at the date of the issue of such certificate serving in the National Forces or in the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann the date of the passing of this Act shall for the purposes of this Schedule be substituted in his case for the date of his discharge from the forces aforesaid."
Amendment not moved.

I beg to move:—

In the Second Schedule, line 35, to add at the end of the Schedule a new paragraph as follows:—

"For the purpose of this Schedule an officer of the Medical Services Branch of the National Forces or of the like Branch of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann shall be deemed to have held one of the ranks in those forces mentioned in the sub-paragraph of this Schedule immediately succeeding the sub-paragraph in which the rank actually held by him is mentioned."

That amendment is introduced to meet the case raised, I think, by Deputy Magennis when the Bill was in Committee. It does not go quite so far as he asked us to go, but I think that it meets the case pretty fairly.

I was asked by a fairly well known person who was in the army what the civil engineers had done that they were not equally worthy of consideration with the medical service.

I am not particularly keen on this amendment if the House does not like to take it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

In the Second Schedule, line 35, to add at the end of the Schedule a new paragraph as follows:—

"Where an applicant held on the 1st day of February, 1924, a rank in the National Forces or the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann higher than the rank held by him in either of those Forces at the date of his discharge therefrom, the rank so held by him on the 1st day of February, 1924, shall for the purposes of this Schedule be substituted in his case for the rank held by him at the date of his discharge."

That amendment is intended to cover the cases of men who under the Reorganisation scheme were reduced in rank, and many of whom subsequently left the Army. The object is to ensure that these men shall be pensionable as of the rank which they held prior to reorganisation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:

In the Third Schedule, in paragraph 1, page 7, to delete lines 43 to 50 inclusive, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:—

A. —Less than £100—5%.

B. —Over £100 and not exceeding £150—10%.

C. —Over £150 and not exceeding £200—20%.

D. —Over £200 and not exceeding £250—30%.

E. —Over £250 and not exceeding £300—40%.

F. —Over £300 and not exceeding £350—50%.

G. —Over £350 and not exceeding £400—60%.

H. —Over £400 and not exceeding £450—70%.

I. —Over £450 and not exceeding £500—80%.

J. —Over £500 and not exceeding £550—90%.

K. —Over £550—100%.

There is a slight alteration in the reductions as originally proposed. This is very much more generous than the previous one.

Is not this giving special advantage to men who served in the National Forces or in the Military Forces, and who may get subsequent service in some other section of the Free State Civil Service, as against those who are pensioned under Clause 10 of the Treaty, who may go into some other part of the Civil Service? It applies to military officers who come under this scheme, and gives them an advantage over and above the Civil Servant who retired under Clause 10 of the Treaty, and who may have taken up another position in the Civil Service.

I do not understand what the Deputy means. If he retired under Clause 10 of the Treaty he would get no other position in the Civil Service without surrendering his pension, but we do not give a position and a pension as well. There was a period in which persons affected by this Bill were deprived of ordinary opportunity in the struggles for existence, either educational experience, business experience, or apprenticeship to a profession or calling, or in some other sphere of activity such as that. In that way we make up by reason of the pension, the loss of service which the person sustained owing to that interruption. Unless a man has extraordinary ability he is likely to take a lower place than he would if a fair chance were given him by not having that interruption. To that extent we are making portion of the pension available in certain cases limited by the amendment that has been passed and limited by these deductions.

What I had in mind was the case of the D.M.P. or resigned R.I.C. who entered the Government service, as they have done in certain cases. If they have a pension they forfeit it to the extent that they cannot earn more if they worked in another department of the Government than the salary they would have had when they retired. Perhaps I am not explaining the matter thoroughly but that is what I had in my mind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment 13 is consequential; it reads:—

In the Third Schedule, page 7, line 54, to delete the word "or" and to insert after the figure and letter "1H" the figures and letters "1I, 1J, or 1K."

Amendment put and agreed to.

When will you definitely make up your mind about that doubt, sir?

I have made up my mind that amendment, No. 3 is out of order until a Money Resolution is introduced. I made up my mind, because I had a doubt on the question and I made it up in the direction which I thought was most suitable to the Minister for Finance and to the public purse. The President may have got opinions on the question. He did not favour me with a copy of those opinions. I have no knowledge of them. The question of whether an amendment in Committee is within the scope of the Money Resolution is a question purely for the Ceann Comhairle and cannot be decided by anybody else. In this particular case I have stated my decision. This question arose, I think, on Thursday of last week and I do not know how the President decided to take this particular course. I received no indication whatever of it nor of the reasons for it.

This is a new set of amendments.

I did not get any information about them. If the President used the words "Revenue Commissioners" in a Money Resolution, would he think it a good thing if, in Committee, the words "Revenue Commissioners" were defined in a wholly new way, so as to include seven persons where as a matter of fact there are only three persons at present, or something of that kind?

If any recollection is correct, the bodies in question, which are covered by this resolution, were not in existence at the time the Defence Forces Act became law—the C.I.D., the Protective Force, and I forget the name of the other——

Were they not in existence in August, 1923?

I understand they were disbanded in the summer of 1923.

Then, they were not part of the National Forces.

The National Forces had not been made statutory at the time. The Act could only refer to bodies in existence. To that extent there could be no limitation as to what the term could really include.

I cannot follow that particular line of argument at all, but I have ruled the amendment out of order.

The contention is that the definition of "National Forces" only applies to that Act, and that in any other Act the term can be defined in a totally different way.

The definition should be in the Money Resolution. It is reasonable to assume here that if you find the words "National Forces" used, it will have the meaning it had before. If you are going to change the definition you should change the Money Resolution. Otherwise, you open the way to increasing the charges by the most extraordinary amendments.

I would like to stress that aspect of the matter. Whatever we may think about the procedure in regard to Money Resolutions, they have very great value for the Dáil and prevent the possibility of the Executive over-riding the declared will of the Dáil. If it were possible to extend, in the course of the Committee Stage of a Bill, a definition of the terms which are used in the Resolution, then the Resolution would be of no value. In a small House the Ministry could do anything. They could extend the definition of the term used in the Resolution to any extent whatsoever.

I could give the President an example in which, I think, Deputy Johnson was ruled out of order. It was, I think, in connection with the Army Pensions Bill. There was a Money Resolution which stated—I have not got the exact words—that pensions would be paid to dependents of persons who died from wounds. In Committee, subsequently, some Deputy desired to bring in the case of men who died from illness. That was ruled out of order, on the ground that the word "wounds" used in the Money Resolution plainly did not mean illness. It has a plain meaning apart from the legal or statutory meaning. When we were dealing with that word we knew what the word "wounds" meant, and that it did not mean, for instance, illness from pneumonia. The Deputy who desired to move that amendment was ruled out of order. That is exactly the same position in which the President finds himself.

Nobody would say that the C.I.D. were either non-national forces or anti-national forces.

That is a wholly different question. My opinion is that, as far as I can discover, they do not come within any definition I can find of "National Forces," and if it is desired that they should be brought in, there must be another Money Resolution.

If that were not done would it not be open to Deputies to put down an amendment which would include the Gárda Síochána or the D.M.P. as "National Forces"?

Deputies forget that there is a definition of "forces" and of "service."

If the President is in order in putting down this amendment, surely the Gárda Síochána could be introduced by means of another amendment as part of the "National Forces." The purpose of the Bill is clearly to include armed forces, and the amendment to introduce the Criminal Investigation Department is clearly within the scope of the Bill, but it has not been provided for in the Money Resolution.

Debate adjourned until Friday, July 18th.