I beg to move my amendment to Section 1. The section, as it stands, reads: "The expression ‘minimum degree of disablement' means eighty per cent. degree of disablement." I am moving to delete the word "eighty" and to substitute for it the word "twenty." As the Bill stands, the minimum is eighty per cent. of total disablement due to disease contracted in the Army. I do not see why the figure should be at eighty per cent. It seems to me that a man who is eighty per cent. disabled is in the same position as a man who is a hundred per cent. disabled. A man who was fifty per cent. or even forty per cent. disabled as the result of disease contracted during service would not come within the terms of this Bill at all. I put down twenty per cent. in my amendment because that is the minimum for a pension for disability due to wounds. If a man is twenty per cent. disabled as a result of wounds received during service he is entitled to a pension, but there must be eighty per cent. disablement before he is entitled to a pension in respect to disease contracted while on service. I will be glad to hear what case the Minister has to make on this matter and why twenty per cent. was fixed as the minimum with respect to wounds, whereas it is eighty in regard to disease. I would also like to hear from him why a man who is seventy or seventy-five per cent. disabled as a result of disease contracted during service should not be entitled to a pension. If a man is disabled to the extent of seventy-five per cent. as the result of disease contracted or attributable to service in the Army or in the Volunteers, and is not to get a pension, will the Minister say how that man is going to live? The man will have to live with his relatives if they are in a position to maintain him, and if not his only alternative is to go into the county home. Does the Minister consider that a man who is disabled to the extent of seventy-five per cent. as a result of disease which he contracted during service that he rendered to this country must go into the county home for the remainder of his life? I cannot understand why the minimum was fixed so high as eighty per cent., and I will be glad to hear what the Minister's explanation is.
ORDERS OF THE DAY. - ARMY PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.
I am not accepting this amendment. The Deputy wants to know why a man should not get a pension in respect to disease contracted in the Army and who is disabled to the extent of twenty per cent. There is a difference between the man who is wounded and gets a pension and the man who contracts disease, whether in the Army or outside of it. A wound is a clear-cut thing that everyone can see. Everyone knows where it was contracted and the day on which it was contracted, and there is a record in connection with it. It is another matter to detect when disease commenced. If you had to find out whether a man was twenty per cent. diseased four years ago or not I would defy any Board, even one of experts, to decide on that. The Deputy wants to know if we are going to let our soldiers and volunteers go into the workhouse. Certainly not, and that is the reason why this Bill is brought forward. In cases where it is proved that hardship exists on account of disease that is attributable to services in the Army, we are going to give these people a pension that will keep them, and I say that eighty per cent. is a fair minimum to fix. The figure was not arrived at in a rough and ready fashion. It got a good deal of consideration, and I believe that eighty per cent. is as far as we can go in the matter of disease. You must take into account the incidence of the disease, how it might have been contracted, whether a man actually contracted it in the service or not, whether he had the germs of the disease before he came into the service, either in the Volunteers or in the National Army. All those, I say, are matters that require very careful consideration. In fixing the minimum at eighty per cent. we believe that we are doing what is reasonable, and that this will meet the cases of hardship that will arise. I do not know whether Deputy Morrissey would expect that we should give a pension to every man who might have got a cold during the trouble in the last five or six years.
I certainly would not give pensions to many of the men to whom the Government have already given pensions—men who got no colds —but I would give pensions to people who are disabled as a result of service.
People who are disabled as a result of service and cases of hardship will be dealt with under this Bill, and I say that eighty per cent. is a reasonable minimum to fix, taking into account the manner in which they are bound to be treated by the Board that will have to examine them. Take the case, say, of a clerk suffering from eighty per cent. disablement. He will be able to do some work in an office. He might not be the best fitted man that you could get, but he would be able to earn a considerable amount of money. The same thing would not apply to a man who had to earn his living with a pick and shovel. Eighty per cent. disablement in one case would not be the same as eighty per cent. disablement in another. In my opinion, and that of my advisers, the minimum that has been fixed is a reasonable one, and I cannot accept the amendment.
I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision on this matter. Under this Bill you will be dealing with people who will have returned to the districts in which they were reared. The employers in their district will know that these young fellows may be suffering from a disablement that will not be quite as much as 80 per cent., and I think the Minister himself is old enough to remember the treatment that the British soldiers met with on account of disability. Employers, knowing that these young fellows will not be capable of giving a full output of work in ordinary occupations, will not employ them, and consequently they will be handicapped in that respect. I would ask the Minister to look at the question from that point of view. You have a graduated scale of pensions, and hence I think the Minister should accept Deputy Morrissey's amendment to meet the cases that he has in mind. A man suffering from a slight disability will not be able to get employment in cases where employers require a fair output of work. I am sure that the Minister himself would not employ a man whom he knew to be an ex-soldier suffering from a slight disability.
I must confess the Minister has astonished me. He talked about a minimum of 80 per cent. total disablement being very fair and reasonable. Why, it is practically the same as if the Minister had put down 100 per cent. We all know that a man who is 80 per cent. disabled as a result of disease has one leg in the grave. The Minister talks about such a man getting employment. Surely the Minister knows that men who are 100 per cent. fit cannot get employment to-day. Does the Minister think that any employer, no matter how charitable he may be, is going to take a man into his service and pay him wages, knowing that that man is 80 per cent. disabled— a man who, in fact, is not able to walk? The Minister has made a point that a wound is something that is there and can be seen, that everybody knows how it was received, and so on. He spoke about the incidence of disease, and said that it is very hard to ascertain when the disease was contracted, or what percentage of the disablement existed three or four years ago. He seems to be forgetting Sections 30 to 35 of his own Bill, where it is laid down that a man has to prove that disease was due solely to service. The Minister cannot get away with it by saying that they are not going to allow any person disabled, as a result of service given to this country, to go into the county home. Let the Minister consider the concrete case I put to him. Take a man 40, 50 or 60 per cent. disabled. If his relatives are unable to maintain him, I hold he has no option but to go into the county home, because men who have a clean bill of health, strong, virile young men, cannot get employment to-day. As I have said, no employer would pay wages to a man 70 or 80 per cent. disabled. Such a man would be a danger to an employer as well as to himself.
I am anxious to support the amendment. I know from my experience in dealing with British Army cases that a labourer 50 per cent. disabled owing to rheumatism, or diseases like that, is practically unemployable. He has to live on his pension. The Minister does not propose to give a pension in these cases; in fact, I am rather surprised at Deputy Morrissey's moderation in laying down 20 per cent. I suppose he was following the British precedent.
No. I put down 20 per cent., as that is the minimum for disablement due to wounds in the Bill.
Well, it was also the British minimum. The United States minimum is 10 per cent. The Minister may say the United States is a very rich country. France also has a 10 per cent. minimum, and France is not in a very satisfactory financial condition at present. Germany, a defeated country, and paying reparations, can also afford a 10 per cent. minimum. In Canada, the minimum is only 5 per cent., I believe. I am not asking the Minister to adopt that Canadian precedent. That may be carrying matters too far, but I do say that to insist on an 80 per cent. of disablement as a minimum for a disability pension is making the Bill a farce, and if Deputy Morrissey carries this to a division I shall vote with him.
I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by the Minister in dealing with this amendment. With Deputy Cooper I also strongly support the amendment, which in my opinion, is reasonable and moderate. I wonder does the Minister know that employers to-day will not give employment to a man with the minimum of disablement he has laid down in the Bill, because such a man would not be eligible for insurance? When he is not eligible for insurance, the employers consider him a danger and will not take him into employment at all. With this 80 per cent. minimum no one is going to gain any benefit by the Bill, and it is only a sham to say that it is dealing with deserving cases. The Minister for Local Government, or anyone who knows anything about employment to-day, knows that men of the kind proposed to be dealt with by the Bill cannot get employment. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to follow the example of the Workmen's Compensation Act and give the men an opportunity of going before a Court and getting a Judge to decide what they are entitled to. It is not fair for the Government to treat in this way men who are responsible for having us in this House, and for having the Minister in the position he is in— just throwing them on the scrap heap. While the country is crying out against over-taxation it wants no victims, and it can stand a little further taxation to avoid having victims.
I am glad that someone has an optimistic view with regard to the resources of the country. Deputy Byrne has shown that he has that view, and he says that the country can stand more taxation.
Mr. BYRNE
Under such circumstances.
Before long the Deputy will be saying this country is overtaxed, and that the Government is responsible for the over-taxation. I wonder why he did not tell me that he wants every man in this country to be a pensioner. It amounts to that. We all want pensions if we can get them, and I think the best thing would be that another Minister should introduce a Bill providing pensions for everybody, including the Deputies, when their time expires. We have done our best in this matter, but we did not bring in this Bill to give pensions to everybody. Speaking from conviction, I say it would have been much better for the country if a Pensions Bill had never been brought in. When these men went out as Volunteers or joined the National Army they did not do so for pensions; they never thought about pensions, but now that pensions are in the air everybody is looking for a pension. I say, deliberately, that it is only the hard cases that we are attempting to cater for under the Bill. We are not attempting to cater for everybody. We do not say that. We are attempting only to cater for the hard cases and no others. Let us understand that. We are not catering for the man who, as Deputy Morrissey said, may be known to have some disease and nobody will employ him. It would be a good thing, no doubt, for an unemployed man to get a pension, but can the country afford it? We have gone to the absolute limit as regards giving pensions.
Could the country afford to give pensions to men who were not one per cent. disabled?
I am dealing with pensions under this Bill, and if the Deputy brings up a case where a man got a pension under any Act to which he was not entitled I will deal with it and see that it will be stopped. I have said that before, and I have heard the same story from other Deputies, but when I asked for information and the names of these people I was refused.
The Minister misunderstands my point. I did not allege that any person got a pension wrongfully. The Minister seems to think that I had that in mind. I asked could the country afford to pay, as it has by law paid, pensions to people who were not 1 per cent. disabled?
I want to take the Minister on his own ground. He said that the pensions are to meet cases of disablement due to military service, but he said that it is not proposed to give pensions to everyone. Rather, he puts it forward and, more or less, charges us with saying that we are in favour of giving pensions to everyone, because we are asking that men disabled by disease due to service shall be treated equally as well as those who gave service but did not suffer disablement. The Minister for Defence will probably remember that his predecessors defended military service pensions on grounds such as these, namely, that men went into the national struggle, broke their professional careers, broke their hopes and expectations of life, their whole outlook was diverted and altered, and, as a consequence, it was due that they should be, in some way, given financial recompense. That is the plea, and I am not criticising it in any way at present. Here, also, these men went into national service, and they have come out of it unable to follow their projected careers. They are not even able to take an equally remunerative career in another walk of life. They are actually physically disabled to the extent of between 20 and 80 per cent. That is the range that we say should be brought in. I say it is only just, the barest justice, that these people who are disabled, through disease contracted in the Army, should be treated at least as well, on the same plane at any rate, as those whose career was diverted or broken, whose prospects in life were diminished by virtue of their national service, but who retained their health. The Minister told us on the last occasion that 80 per cent. was practically total disablement, and, of course, we know that that is so; but for many men 50 per cent. is practically total disablement. At any rate, it is 50 per cent. disablement, and a man's ability to earn a living, if he got an opportunity of doing so, is diminished by 50 per cent. I think the Minister's ground for refusal is entirely untenable except on one plea, and that is, the financial plea. Are we to take that plea as final and decisive?
resumed the Chair.
The Minister is not prepared to say that these men joined the Army for the purpose of getting awards. No, surely they did not, none of them did. The military service pensioners did not, but they got pensions, if they gave the required service. These men did not, but they have come out unable to earn a livelihood owing to disease contracted on service. Let us bear in mind that that is the provision. That is not the case of a man who went in, as the Minister said, with disease and came out with the same disease. The Bill provides for pensions in the case of disablement due to disease attributable to military service. By every analogy, in every army, or in civil life where disablement is due to service rendered, we are bound, as a matter of justice, to consider these men as entitled to some benefit from the State because of their disablement due to the service they gave. The Minister says that we all might talk about looking for pensions. I, for one, would be prepared to say that if any Deputy, or Minister, suffered a 50 per cent. disablement due to his service in this House he is entitled to a pension. If we cannot find the money, probably we will have to retrench somewhere else. We might have to revise our previous Pensions Bill. We might have even to be driven to doing very distasteful things, but let us not say to this particular class of people who suffered disablement through disease attributable to service: "You, at any rate, have to look elsewhere for pity, justice, and something like care in your disablement." I hope the House will support this amendment. I hope it will take it as a matter of personal concern and, speaking on behalf of the State and the constituents they represent, say: "We direct Ministers in this matter that they are to treat these disabled men with the same amount of justice as they have treated the undisabled men to whom pensions have been given."
Deputy Johnson makes a great plea on behalf of these men. Perhaps they have as much sympathy from the Government as from any Deputy. We must recollect that when those men joined the Volunteers or came into the National Army there was no system of medical inspection, or if there was a system, even in the Army, the majority of the men came in when it was very lax. Men might have come in who might have been suffering partially from some disease that they are now suffering from, but of which no one knew at the time. It is quite a different matter with men who joined the forces since October, 1924, when a proper system of medical examination was set up. These men came into the Army absolutely healthy as far as medical science could guarantee. Where men joined the Volunteers in 1922 and 1923 it could not be said if they were physically fit or not. A great many risks have to be taken, and I believe that under this Bill as it stands the really genuine cases will be catered for. As I said, we are not catering for everybody. We are catering for cases of hardship, and that is as far as the country can go at the present time. I do not see that I could accept the amendment.
Perhaps the Minister and the mover of the amendment might be able to arrive at some compromise in this matter? The Minister's percentage on the one side seems very high, and the mover's percentage on the other seems scarcely high enough. Would it not be well if the Minister reconsidered this matter before the next stage, or give an undertaking that he would consider if some compromise could not be come to? I think that would be the best way to deal with it. Surely no one can expect that men suffering from disease can earn a livelihood? If they contracted disease in the Army their case is a genuine one. If they did not contract it in the Army, then they have no case. I believe that all these people who are suffering disability on that account will be thrown, as the mover of the amendment said, on the local rates and the County Homes if something is not done for them. On these benches we are not out to advocate anything but economy. At the same time I think I see in this question a remarkably fair claim. These people should not be thrown on the local rates. They should be catered for by the Army where they contracted the disease. I do not think the finances of the country have been so completely safeguarded in every other direction as in this matter by the Government. The Minister makes the plea that the country cannot stand such a claim. I say that we have very high taxation, taxation that in many quarters might be avoided if the Government was as careful in every decision as it was in this one.
I am prepared to meet the Minister in this matter if he has any suggestion to offer. Although I think the 20 per cent. minimum is moderate, still I realise that if the Minister is going to take up a stone wall attitude and say that it is to be 75 per cent. I can do nothing, If the Minister is prepared to say that he will make the minimum anything from 20 to 50 per cent., say 30 per cent., I will be prepared to meet him if he will undertake to bring in an amendment to that effect.
I cannot undertake to bring in anything that would satisfy the Deputy. I will undertake this much: I will reconsider the matter in all its bearings between this and the Report Stage if the amendment now before the House is withdrawn. I want it to be clearly understood that that is not a promise that I am going to alter the minimum percentage in the section. I will reconsider the matter.
If I were to agree to what the Minister has said, I take it that the agreement would be conditional, and that I would have the right to move an amendment on the Report Stage. If the Minister is prepared to consider a reduction from 80 per cent. between now and the Report Stage, I am prepared to give him a chance of doing so. That will be on the understanding that I will be in a position, if the Minister cannot see his way to come down from 80 per cent., to move an amendment on the Report Stage.
There is another aspect that the Minister might take into consideration. He realises that this kind of thing is largely to be determined by the considered views of the House. The only way to do that, as we are on the Committee Stage, is to let the House decide whether it would desire the Minister to make the change. If the House decides "yea" the Minister will know what the views are. If the House decides "nay" the Minister will have no alternative but to bring in a new proposal on the Report Stage. The Minister has had an opportunity of considering this matter since it was raised on the Second Reading, but he has not had the views of the House. As this is the Committee Stage, the decision has to be confirmed on the Report Stage, so that the best course to adopt is to let the House have an opportunity of intimating to the Minister what it desires.
If the House wishes to have a division on the amendment it can have it, and have the question settled. There can be no bargain about it. As I said, I am willing to reconsider it, but I cannot have any further bargaining. If the amendment is to be decided now, let it be decided.
Apparently the Minister has made up his mind not to recede from the 80 per cent., so it is better put the amendment.
Tá
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Daniel Breen.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- David Hall.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- James Sproule Myles.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Seoirse de Bhulb.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán Mac Curtain.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair. Risteárd O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), at the end, to add the words, "and death otherwise than from a wound, caused by shock, strain or exhaustion due to active military service."
This is to amend an infirmity in this section. There are some cases other than those described in the section. For instance, people who died, not from actual wounds, but who, nevertheless, died in action. They are very few, but they are of such merit and importance that they deserve to be considered. Has the Minister considered the advisability of accepting the amendment?
Undoubtedly cases of the kind which the Deputy has in mind do come under Section 14 (c) as it stands. It is impossible to cater for individual cases in the Bill, but this class of case means disease absolutely.
Mr. HOGAN
The point I should like to call the attention of the Minister to is that it says "due solely to disease." I should like to know if the Minister includes in the word "disease,""exhaustion or strain due to active military service." If that is so, there cannot be much objection to saying so, and inserting it. It would cover the case and make it perfectly clear and there would be no trouble. This is a case not due solely to disease. It is a case of exhaustion after active service.
I might add, for the information of the Deputy, that the particular case he has in mind is brought within the Bill because the man is alleged, according to the certificate, to have died from heart disease. That will be clearly within the definition of disease. There is no use in lumbering the Bill with wording that is not necessary. This case is clearly brought inside the Bill. It is a question afterwards for the Board to say whether the conditions are fulfilled, but the case is covered.
The Minister is not quite correct, I think. To begin with, there is a possibility of doubt as to whether such cases as those quoted by Deputy Hogan would be deemed to be persons whose death was due to disease.
Surely if there is a certificate of death from a certain disease that puts it beyond any doubt.
I do not think it does put it beyond any doubt. Even supposing the Minister's interpretation is right, the section in question deals with gratuities to dependents in certain cases. But if the person had suffered death through a shot, I think I am right in saying that the dependents would be entitled to a pension. The proposition in the amendment is that the word "killed" is to include death by drowning and death caused by shock, strain or exhaustion, due to active military service. Following upon the killing is a pension, not a gratuity. That is an additional reason why the amendment should be accepted.
Does Amendment No. 26 meet that?
Yes. In disease cases the widow and children, but not the parents or the grandparents, or any other people, are brought in under Amendment No. 26, which, I hope, will be acceptable.
The Minister has not referred to that until now. Will he tell us something about it?
Yes, when we come to it.
Mr. HOGAN
If you take the two in conjunction there is still a doubt in my mind. "Died solely from disease attributable to military service"— there is still that loophole of escape, "attributable to military service."
That is the whole basis of the Bill—attributability.
Supposing we go on and deal not only with Sections 13, 14 and 16, but the Minister's amendment, 26. When we have done that, if the Deputy is not then satisfied, he will still be within his rights, after he has heard the debate on the Sections and on Amendment 26, by the Minister, to bring forward this amendment again on the next Stage.
Mr. HOGAN
Very well.
Are we sure to be going back into Committee on the next Stage?
I could not guarantee that. I merely state that if the Deputy withdraws his amendment now he will have his rights on the next Stage, if he is not satisfied. As to going into Committee on that Stage, that is another matter. I could not order the House into Committee now for the next Stage. It is not unlikely, however.
We shall assume it.
Might I suggest to Deputy Cooper that we might take his amendment No. 5 as the deciding amendment and allow the decision on that to cover Amendments No. 3 and 4 and Amendment No. 6 also. I think No. 6 is part of the scheme.
I rather object to that for two reasons. Two issues are raised: the number of persons there are to be on the Army Pensions Board and the manner in which they are to be appointed. Amendment 3 raises a distinct issue and is not merely consequential. In the same way Amendment No. 6 raises a distinct issue, whether persons appointed to the Army Pensions Board shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister and are to be removable by the Minister, or whether they are to have a more permanent and judicial position. Amendment No. 4 is consequential on No. 3.
Very well, then, we shall take Amendment No. 3.
Then I beg to move Amendment No. 3. The Minister proposes that the Army Pensions Board shall consist of a chairman and two ordinary members, one of whom is a member of the Army Medical Service and the other an outside doctor. I suggest that there should be two outside doctors. Apparently there is to be one board and one alone dealing both with wounds and disability cases. That being so, there should be a physician and a surgeon on the board. It is to be presumed that these men will be of some eminence in their profession. The Minister will not go and get the cheapest doctor, nor will he get the ordinary dispensary doctor. He will get men of some position, and these men are generally specialists. They do not as a rule deal both with surgical and with medical cases. Therefore I think he should have two ordinary members instead of one besides an officer of the Army Medical Service.
I cannot accept that amendment, because I take it that to all intents and purposes the medical officers that will be required will be physicians, not surgeons. We know exactly the number of wound cases that we will have to deal with under the Bill. They are those that occurred from 30th September, 1923, to October 1st, 1924. They did not come under the 1923 Act, so that the majority of cases that will have to be dealt with under this Bill when it becomes an Act will be medical cases, not surgical cases. I think from my experience in the past of medical boards that two medical members, with an independent chairman, will be quite sufficient. If we were to overload this board we would never get through the amount of business that would have to be done.
The Minister knows the number of surgical cases. Can he tell us how many there are to be dealt with?
About sixty that did not come under the Act of 1923.
Are we to understand that the Minister's intention is to appoint a civilian practitioner who is a physician and an Army medical officer with some knowledge of wounds? If so, that would probably make a practical board, and I would withdraw my amendment except that I do not want to prejudice myself on my Amendment 5.
Amendment 5 seeks to introduce a board of more than three members. If sub-section (1) stands without amendment it would seem that Amendment 5 could not now be moved.
I am afraid so, and I ask leave to withdraw Amendments 3, 4 and 5.
I move Amendment 6. It is an attempt to alter the section by limiting the power of the Minister. At present the Minister may, if he thinks fit, remove any member of the Pensions Board at any time that he likes. They only hold office during the pleasure of the Minister, and I propose by this amendment to give them a more permanent tenure, and let them hold office on practically the same terms as judges. They are, in fact, judges, judges of the degree of disability from which a man is suffering. While I think the Minister has some precedents for it, I think they are bad precedents. He must bear in mind that in dealing with these men, who are suffering from wounds or disease because of service, he is not dealing with happy, cheerful men who think every thing the best. You are dealing with men who have suffered, who have in many cases resented the delay in introducing this measure dealing with the question of disability pensions. You are dealing with men who, I know, are extremely suspicious. As long as this power of the Minister to remove a member of the Pensions Board stands part of the Bill, a man who claims a pension will feel that the dice are loaded against him. I do not suggest that the Minister intends to do anything improper. I am sure, from my knowledge of his character, he does not, but it will be very hard to convince a man who is labouring under a grievance that the Minister has not brought undue pressure to bear on the board. He will feel that he is going to law with the devil, with the court in hell. So far as the ex-service man is concerned, of course I would not compare the Minister to anything less respectful than a member of the Executive Council, but that is the belief the ordinary man will have. I propose, instead, that these members, when appointed, should hold their posts until they are removed by resolution of either House of the Oireachtas. I am leaving it open to the Minister to come to the Dáil if he has good cause to remove a member of the board. I am sure the Dáil would be only too glad to give him power.
I think it would be opportune on this amendment for the Minister to give some views as to the character of this board which he proposes to set up, and its work, because in one way that will affect the view as to the merits of this amendment. For instance, we have to connect it with the proposal to delete sub-section (5), that there is to be no payment to these members of the Board. I think the Minister ought to take this opportunity of explaining his intention regarding the composition of this board in a general way—whether it is to be an internal departmental affair, or whether it is to consist of independent medical men or women.
In the first place, the board is to be a temporary board, and I cannot understand how it is that Deputy Cooper wants to place a board that is going to be in existence for a couple of years at the outside on the same plane as Judges of the High Court, so that in order to change a member of the board or to get rid of his services we must come to the Oireachtas and get a Resolution passed, to remove him from his exalted office. I do not think the Deputy is really serious in that. He did not advert to the fact that it is to be a temporary board. If these men were being appointed for life, with the powers of High Court Judges, I would certainly agree with the proposal. But for men in a temporary capacity, I do not think the amendment is at all in keeping with what is required.
Deputy Johnson wanted information regarding the deletion of sub-section (5). The object of the deletion is to enable the Minister for Finance to advance money to members of the board for expenses. One of the members will certainly be an officer of the Army, and he may have to travel on the business of the board. If sub-section (5) remains he will not be allowed any expenses. The same thing could happen if the other member of the Board was in the service of the Government. The deletion of sub-section (5) would enable the Minister for Finance to give any remuneration which he thinks may be necessary to either of these members.
I do not want to be lured into discussing that part of the Bill, but I may tell the Minister that, in my opinion, this ought not to be a temporary board. My experience in dealing with the British Pensions Act has convinced me that any amount of hardship has been caused by the British time limit. A petition with, I think, nearly a million signatures, was got up for its removal.
There is no time limit fixed, but this is to be a temporary board.
How can the Minister say that? How can the Minister know that? Sometimes these illnesses take a very long time to develop. It ought not to be a temporary board, because cases may occur where a man may suddenly develop a disability or where his disability may become very much accentuated. I think this board ought to be in existence until one House of the Oireachtas decides that it ought to cease. The Minister makes the case for my amendment stronger than it was before.
The case that I make is that the man has four years from the date of his disability, or twelve months after the passing of this Act, to make application.
There is a time limit.
There is a time limit for the disease to reach the minimum degree of disability. If it does not reach the minimum the man is outside the Act. I think he has a long time from the date he first became disabled to reach the 80 per cent. That does not give it the appearance of a permanent board. A man must make his application within twelve months after the passing of this Act. It is a question of how long it will take to hear the cases, and when the cases are heard the board must dissolve in the usual way.
The Minister says four years is a sufficient time limit, but in the case of the British Act seven years has been found to have been altogether insufficient. There is a lot of other cases which I could quote to the Minister. In France, where the time limit was five years, it has been extended to 1928. That is to say, it was five years after the Armistice. It has now been extended to nine years. In South Africa there is no limit of any kind. I reaffirm my point that this should not be a temporary board. This board should be permanently in existence as long as there is a possibility of a genuine claim being put forward.
The board will be in existence as long as there is a genuine claim to be put forward or to be decided, but to put the members of this board in the capacity of Judges of the High Court and to say that you must come to both Houses of the Oireachtas and pass a resolution to remove these gentlemen, either for misconduct or anything else, is a preposterous proposition as far as I can see it. The only case in which it occurs is the Judiciary. I do not think we could attempt to put a temporary board—and this is a temporary board—in the same position as Judges of the High Court.
Amendment put and declared lost, Deputy Cooper dissenting.
I move to delete sub-section (5) of Section 5, for the reasons I have stated to Deputy Johnson.
I am not quite able to understand the point the Minister has made, but perhaps I did not quite follow him. The sub-section states: "There may be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to any member of the Army Pensions Board, who is not in receipt of remuneration out of public funds, such fees or remuneration as the Minister for Finance may determine." I gather from the Minister that if this sub-section remains in, neither fees, remuneration, expenses of travelling, nor out-of-pocket expenses may be paid to any member of the board. I do not know whether that is the explanation the Minister gave.
To any member of the board already in receipt of remuneration out of public funds.
Will there not be need to have some kind of provision made in the Bill for remuneration, or at least provision partly to remunerate a non-official member?
The Minister for Finance has that power in his hands under the Bill. He appoints one member.
I gather the position the Minister takes up is that if this sub-section (5) is inserted it will have the effect of excluding any fees or remuneration, or even an allowance for travelling expenses to a member of the board who is in receipt of remuneration out of public funds—that it will really have an exclusive effect rather than an inclusive effect.
If the section is left in, it would prohibit the Minister from giving any additional remuneration to any person who receives remuneration from any public funds at present. Take, for instance, any of the doctors appointed by the Minister for Finance. If a doctor were holding any appointment under the Government for which he is paid a salary, and that it was desired that he should get additional remuneration for the duties he would have to perform as a member of the board, if that sub-section were left in the Minister for Finance could not pay him the additional remuneration. We want to obviate that and we want to make it possible that such a payment can be made if necessary.
Could the Minister point to the other Bill which gave the Minister power to remunerate a non-official member of the board?
Sub-section (3) states: "The Chairman of the Army Pensions Board and the ordinary member of that Board who is not an officer of the Army Medical Service shall be appointed by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance," and so on. It is absolutely essential that if you appoint a man you must fix a salary for him. You must pay him for doing the work if he is not a member of some Government Department. Supposing you have some outside surgeon or medical practitioner and you put him on the Board, you must fix a certain extra remuneration for him. That does not affect sub-section (5). It is where an officer is already an officer of the Government. If he were appointed a member the Minister would not have power to give him any additional remuneration for services rendered on the Board.
I think I have picked up the argument of the Minister regarding the possible effect, though I am not quite convinced, of this sub-section, in respect of the member of the Board who is already a civil servant or a member of the Army. I want to know whether there is in the Bill, anywhere, authority to pay a non-official member of the Board any remuneration because, as I read it, it seemed to suggest that the intention was to make the Board entirely an official Board. That is to say, you will have one member of the Army Medical Service and another medical man who is on the Civil Service pay list. I want to make sure that there is provision made in the Bill that the non-official member of the Board may be paid, even though he is not a member of the Civil Service.
It is not specifically in any clause of the Bill, but the Minister for Defence, in making this appointment, must fix the amount of remuneration for the medical man or the non-medical man who would be Chairman of the Board.
Where would his authority be?
His authority, I take it, is a general authority. If he has the power of appointment surely he must have the power of fixing the remuneration for the work done.
Not without special authority.
I think the Minister is on rather dangerous ground. I suggest his object would be achieved not by deleting the whole sub-section, but by taking out the words "who is not in receipt of remuneration out of public funds." That would not limit it in the manner suggested. It would make it quite clear that others are entitled to be paid.
It seems to me that the explanation, if you can call it an explanation, has succeeded in blinding the House. I cannot see the object of deleting this sub-section except that it is to cut out all possibilities of appointing any independent man, other than the Army surgeon. That is the object of this sub-section. It is not the intention of the Minister to appoint anybody except a civil servant who will be favourable to the views of the Minister, and who will be partial to the Minister's view of these pension cases.
Why not adopt the suggestion thrown out in the previous amendment by Deputy Cooper and have a man recommended by the Royal College of Surgeons, so that the people in the country will have some confidence in the personnel of the Board?
Is the Minister accepting Deputy Cooper's suggestion?
Yes.
The sub-section would then read:
There may be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to any member of the Army Pensions Board such fees or remuneration as the Minister for Finance may determine.
Provision is made similar to that outlined in this amendment in Section 27 of the Bill. Rules are to be made and laid on the Tables of both Houses.
Deputy Colohan has anticipated the argument that I intended to urge on this section, that the method provided for appointment of this Board is not a very satisfactory one. As I said before, you are dealing with men who are both suspicious and —I am sorry to say—embittered. They will not look with favour on a Board appointed solely by the Minister. If the Minister could give any indication as to how he proposed to select the members of the Board, it might assist us. Apart from an officer of the Army Medical Service, whom, of course, he must select, how will the others be selected? Will he consult the Civil Service Commission or the heads of the medical profession? I am not tied to any particular method of appointment, but I do say that all the members of the Board should not be directly appointed by the Minister, holding office at the Minister's pleasure and liable to be removed by the Minister at any time and a new member appointed.
If a member of the Board were removed, it would be almost impossible to get applicants to believe that he was not removed because he was too liberal to the claimants and that the Minister proceeded to appoint a more complaisant substitute. We all hope that this Bill is going to do a great deal of good amongst people who, I am sorry to say, feel that they have not been treated with that fairness or gratitude they expected. Ex-Servicemen who have served with the National Army feel that they would have got disability pensions and more generous wound pensions if their wounds had been received in the European war and not in their own country. I feel that the method of appointment set out in this section is wrong, and I hope the Minister will give some indication that, on Report Stage, he will be prepared to bring in at least one independent member of this Board—a man who will not be appointed by the Minister himself.
I desire to support the view that the board should assuredly have one member at least who is not directly appointed by the Minister and who might be considered by the applicants as free from departmental pressure. I have often said that I am not subject to the particular suspicion that attaches in many people's minds to the Civil Service. But that suspicion is very widely prevalent. Amongst people who are likely to be affected, it would be well that there should be that mark of confidence in the board that would be secured by having at least one person who is not nominated by the Minister—who might be considered to be independent of departmental and Ministerial influence. I put forward that view, in support of Deputy Cooper, for the express purpose of securing, so far as it is possible, a greater chance of confidence in the board on the part of the applicants for pensions.
As regards the composition of the board, it is to include one officer of the Army who is a medical practitioner. The other medical member is to be appointed by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Now, I do not at all admit that whoever is appointed to fill that position—whether he be a civil servant or an outside practitioner—will be susceptible to departmental influence. I should not like to tell the officer whom I will appoint on that board that he must act in a certain way or that he must do certain things. I do not think I would be justified in adopting that course, nor do I think that the Minister for Finance would feel justified in ordering a member of the Civil Service to carry out his instructions as to the manner in which the work of this board was to be discharged. The medical men appointed on this board will hear evidence and make examinations, and on the basis of these examinations and that evidence they will find whether an applicant will be entitled to a pension or not. I do not think it is fair even to suggest that a member of the Civil Service would take from his Minister a hint or suggestion of the kind that has been thrown out. I am sure the members of the Civil Service are above that. I think that the provision made in this section for appointing the board is good and adequate.
Does the Minister admit that it is desirable that the greatest possible amount of confidence should be reposed in the board by applicants?
Certainly.
That is admitted, and we know that there does prevail pretty widely a feeling amongst the particular class concerned that Ministerial nominees will endeavour to reduce the amount of the pensions. I do not believe that there is any likelihood whatever of civil servants being prejudiced against the applicants, but the Minister is probably as well aware of the feeling that prevails as I am. My plea, following Deputy Cooper, is that every cause for suspicion should, if possible, be removed. We should try and provide so that there would be no excuse for suspicion. We should not agree, as I think is suggested by the Minister's reply, that the board should be wholly composed of departmental officials. The question as to who will nominate is even less important than provision for at least one member who is not a civil servant. I fear that what is in the Minister's mind, judging by his statement, is that the whole of the board shall be civil servants. If that is done, it will have an unfortunate effect on the minds of the applicants. I do not think it would make any difference in my view in this matter or in the view of the Deputies here. But that is not sufficient. We may be all perfectly satisfied with the capacity of the board to deal fairly and impartially—even favourably—with the applicants, but we ought to do all we can to ensure that any excuse for suspicion shall be removed. If the board is going to consist of civil servants exclusively, you are not going to ease the situation from the point of view of the suspicions of the applicants.
I am afraid I must have given a wrong impression to the Minister. I do not object to civil servants, and I do not suggest that civil servants would be improperly influenced by the Minister. I said that we should do everything possible to ensure that there should be confidence in the board on the part of the applicants and that no board exclusively appointed by the Minister would give that confidence.
The Minister thinks it would be a good board. Of course, he appoints it. Would the Minister think that a board appointed solely by the applicants for pensions would be a good board? He would not, and I suggest that his feeling, when I put forward the idea that the board might be appointed by the applicants, though not as pronounced as the feeling of the Minister for Finance at the suggestion, was akin to the feeling of the applicants at the proposal that the board be appointed by the Minister. There should be at least one independent member appointed by an outside authority on the board and not have every member of the board appointed by the Minister. That is not an attack upon any member of the board. I did not know whether the members were to be civil servants or not when I spoke. I did not know until the Minister spoke that there was any idea of appointing civil servants. It is extremely important that the applicants should have confidence in this board, confidence that they will get an impartial hearing. There is the suspicion amongst them, which I regret, that if their cases are considered wholly from the departmental point of view, and solely by persons, whether civil servants or not, appointed by the Minister for Defence, the hearing will be a one-sided one. I regret that suspicion exists, and I think the Minister should make some effort to remove it.
I am supporting the idea urged by Deputy Cooper. I think it is very important. The demand he has made is very reasonable. The Minister said he would be very reluctant to approach any member of the board with a view to influencing him in any way. I accept and appreciate that. By accepting that, it does not follow that there is anything unreasonable in the present demand. The Minister is anxious that this tribunal should be above reproach and that it should be entirely impartial. He has now the best opportunity he can get of securing that that principle of impartiality shall be embodied in the Bill. The Minister does not consider it quite fair that the question as to departmental influence should be mentioned by Deputy Cooper. I think it is very desirable that that particular point of view should be raised here. We are here moulding this Bill in the best way, and it is very desirable that a question like this should be raised and discussed with a view to making the tribunal all that the Minister desires. There is no point at issue between Deputy Cooper, Deputy Johnson and the Minister on this question. There is a general desire that this tribunal should be all that it can be made in regard to the administration of this Bill. I do not know how the Minister, while maintaining and advocating that view and expressing his desire for an impartial hearing of evidence can resist a demand designed to ensure that the tribunal will be absolutely impartial.
Like Deputy Murphy, I do not desire to be taken as insinuating that the Minister would be guilty of setting up a board susceptible to departmental control. I do not think he would, but I think it is absolutely necessary that this board should have the confidence of the men for whom the benefits of the Bill are intended. I think it is a mistake to say that there is no suspicion as to unfair findings, because there will be unfair findings, especially if the Minister appoints the whole personnel of the board. I have had a good many complaints from soldiers who underwent medical treatment in some of the military hospitals. Their statements were true. And, further, the findings of some of the military boards have not been true, because they have taken these men afterwards——
I think the Deputy is now making statements that he should either prove or withdraw. He has made two statements. He says that to his own knowledge the findings of the military boards were not true. How does he know whether they were true or not? Did he hear the evidence? Was he present? Is he taking the word of somebody? I think the Deputy should be able to substantiate a charge like that when he makes it.
I can prove what I am saying. One case I brought before the Minister for Defence on several occasions, and it was turned down. It was said that the disability in the case was not due to military service. The man was called up for treatment in St. Bricin's Hospital and they performed another operation on him. It made him even worse than he was before. They gave him a pension and also a gratuity. Does not that prove that they were wrong on all the previous occasions? That is one case in point. I can give the name.
I should like to get it.
In that case the applicant got a pension.
The practical difficulty in the case of an assertion such as Deputy Colohan has made is that it cannot be effectively proved or disproved here.
I do not think that I suggested that this board, which is not appointed yet and for which no names have been suggested, should be a purely Civil Service Board. The probability is that it will not. I have not even thought of the officer of the Army who is to be appointed on it. I have not thought of the selection to be made, inside the Civil Service or outside the Civil Service, as to a second doctor. All that I do know is that a very eminent gentleman in the city, who is not a civil servant, has sent in a "feeler" to know whether he would be appointed. That is all that is known yet. I am at a loss to think that the Deputies should be in such a state of excitement over the appointment of the members of the board. I believe, when the board is appointed, it will have the confidence of the applicants. I will try, as far as lies in my power, to get the best possible people to act on it, people who will extend fair play to the applicants and to the State.
I must ask the Minister to take note of the evidence on which the suspicion in my mind arose that it was his intention, or the intention of the Minister for Finance, to appoint a person to this board either as an honorary medical gentleman or as one who was already in the pay of the State. The proposal to delete subsection (5) seems to me to point pretty clearly to that as the intention. That may be an unfounded suspicion, but one learns, in three or four years in this House, all the consequences of certain moves on the Ministerial benches in respect to Bills. This looks very like a proposal to pave the way for the appointment of a fully State-paid service. I would still like an assurance from the Minister—notwithstanding his general guarantee that it will be the best board he can get—for the purpose of instilling the amount of confidence desirable in his own interest and in the interests of the administration of the Act, that one at least of the members of the board should not be a member of the Civil Service. I think that would be an advantage in every respect. It is because I feel that there are pointers in this matter that I would like to have an assurance before the Bill is passed, that the Minister will concede the point that Deputy Cooper has made.
If the Deputy is very insistent upon getting some declaration before the Bill is passed I will consider the matter and see whether I can say definitely that at least one of the members will not be a member of the Civil Service.
I think, when we resume, we should first take Section 7. There are two amendments, 9 and 10, proposing appeals tribunals. I think we should take the first subsection to the proposed new section dealing with appeals tribunals, because there are two appeals tribunals proposed. If a decision is taken that there ought to be an appeals tribunal, we can decide on the composition of it afterwards.
If Deputy Bolger's amendment is moved, I am quite willing not to move mine. I am more concerned on getting an appeals tribunal than the method by which it will be appointed. I have not had an opportunity of getting in touch with Deputy Bolger. I ask the Minister to move to report progress.