Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 1927

Vol. 18 No. 11

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ARMY PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL, 1926—COMMITTEE (RESUMED).

(1) Every application for the grant of a pension, gratuity, or allowance under the Principal Act which is pending at the date of the passing of this Act and every application for the grant of a pension, gratuity, or allowance under the Principal Act, as amended by this Act or under this Act (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) shall be referred by the Minister to the Army Pensions Board.
(2) The Army Pensions Board shall examine every application referred to them under this section and shall report thereon to the Minister in the prescribed form.
(3) Every report by the Army Pensions Board on an application referred to them under this section shall be conclusive.
(4) No application for a pension, allowance, or gratuity under this Act which is based on a wound received on or after the 1st day of October, 1924, or on the death of a person killed on or after that date shall be referred to the Army Pensions Board.

I move to delete sub-section (3). It is only necessary when we are going to make the Army Pensions Board the final and conclusive board. It is not necessary to have it in the Bill at present.

I would like to know exactly what this means. I have an amendment in similar words providing for the establishment of a permanent Appeal Board. The Minister's amendment, without some form of Appeal Board leaves a claimant the right to appeal to the courts. I do not know has the Minister considered that possibility?

That would be the result of carrying this amendment without establishing an Appeal Board. I think the Minister should look into the matter before the Report Stage.

I have looked into it carefully and I am satisfied that sub-section (3) is not necessary to the Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move to delete sub-section (4). I do so partly with the object of eliciting information and partly because I do not see the need for the date the 1st October, which is the final date after which there is no reference to a Pensions Board. I take it the intention of the Minister is that pensions or gratuities shall be paid in respect of persons who may be killed or wounded on Army service even after the 1st October, 1924. I do not understand the reason for fixing that date. What is to be the approach if there is no Pensions Board? Is it to be left wholly to the discretion of the Minister without any independent or semi-independent authority in the case of any person who is wounded in the course of his duty after the 1st October, 1924?

Sub-section (4) provides for cases occurring after the 1st October, 1924, which was the date on which the Army Defence Forces came into existence. Any case occurring after that will be on an ordinary peace footing and can be dealt with departmentally. It cannot be said that a person injured by a mechanical vehicle, or in any other way, should not get proper compensation. Departmental machinery is in existence by which these cases can be decided on their merits. A person who suffered an injury after that date would not be debarred from receiving proper treatment according to the nature of the wound he got.

Can the Minister say if there is any authority for paying a pension or a gratuity to a person wounded in the course of his duty apart from this Bill or the previous Act? It seems to me in any case that there is need for machinery.

Section 12, sub-section (4) deals with the point.

I see that, but the point is what machinery for examination of cases is being set up? Apparently it is direct access to the Minister.

This Board must terminate some time, and must come to the end of its duties. If we were going to carry on the Board would have to be in existence as long as the Army was in existence. If there were only one or two cases in the course of twelve months it would not be worth while to keep the Board in existence to deal with them. These cases could come before the Minister in the ordinary way and be dealt with departmentally, and they would get as much justice as if dealt with by any Army Pensions Board. On the whole, it is better when the Board has finished its work that these cases should be dealt with departmentally, and I think machinery can be evolved that will give them justice.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I would like to bring under the notice of the Minister the position of the dependents of the men who have died. Such cases were raised here last week. Will the dependents of men who have died in hospital through disease contracted by serving in the Army and whose cases had been turned down under the previous Act be eligible to apply for compensation, gratuity or allowance under this section?

Does the Deputy mean wounds or disease, or both?

I mean disease.

There was no provision whatever for disease in the 1923 Act, which covered pensions only. Under this Bill a man comes in who has got disease while in the Army, attributable to Army service. If such cases fulfil the conditions laid down in the Bill they will be eligible to apply.

That was the Minister's reply to the people who wrote to him and asked him for help to tide them over the time in cases where their sons had contracted disease and were in hospital. I would like to know if those who were refused compensation under the 1923 Act will be eligible to apply under this Bill.

Of course they will be eligible to apply under this Bill if they come within the terms of this Bill.

The question does not arise on this section at all.

If that is so, I would like to be informed what section it does arise under.

I could not give any information to the Deputy on that.

This is the only section that deals with the cases I have mentioned.

Nearly every section in the Bill except this deals with those cases.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Sub-sections (1) and (3).
(1) Every person who was discharged from the forces before the 1st day of October, 1924, and was at the date of his discharge suffering from a disablement caused by disease attributable to service in the forces during the period which commenced on the 1st day of April, 1922, and ended on the 30th day of September, 1924, may, if the degree of such disablement was at the date of such discharge or has become or becomes (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) within four years after such discharge not less than the minimum degree of disablement, be granted a disability pension at the rate mentioned in the appropriate column of the Second Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement mentioned in the first column of that Schedule.
(3) Every pension granted under this section shall commence from such date as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall determine, but such date shall not be earlier than the date of the passing of this Act, nor than the date on which the disablement first amounted or amounts to the minimum degree of disablement.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, to delete line 32; and in line 34 to delete the words "within four years after such discharge" and substitute the words "is at the date of his examination by the Army Pensions Board or becomes after such date but within four years after his discharge."

It would be impossible to say in what state of health certain persons were when they came into the Army, and the amendment proposes to give a man four years from the date of his disablement or one year from the passing of the Bill to apply to get the minimum percentage. If this amendment were not made it would be impossible in some cases to determine whether a man had disease on entering the Army or was free from disease. The four years that run from the date on which he alleges he contracted the disease, or a year from the date of the passing of the Bill, will give the Board an ample opportunity to find out whether the man has attained the disability mentioned in the Bill at the expiration of the four years.

The question arises: Will the determination of the Board be that the 80 per cent. disablement, or whatever the percentage of disablement might be in the Bill, must have occurred on his discharge?

Within four years of his discharge.

Would that be effected by the form of this amendment?

I think so.

I will have to look into that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In sub-section (3), line 53, to delete the words "than the date of the passing of this Act, nor."

This seems to be rather an important question, though it refers to persons discharged before October, 1924. If granted pensions, their pensions would not begin until, let us say, April of this year. There would be no payment, no allowance whatever of any kind, for all the doctors' fees and expenses that have been incurred treating this disease, and every day that the Seanad or that the Dáil is not sitting means damage to the interest of the particular patient. That seems to me to be unfair. If we decide that pensions should be payable in these cases, I think we should not make them dependent on the date of the passing of this Bill. I think that there should be some provision dating back, or making it possible for some payment to be given in respect of the period during which the expenses have been incurred on account of the disease. I think this is too stiff and too hard against the patient, and I would like the Minister to deal with this matter from the point of view of the Department as to what it means, whether it is simply on the ground of economy or whether there is any administrative difficulty. It will undoubtedly mean that for every day's delay in the passing of the Bill the prospective pensioner will be damaged, and I am therefore moving the deletion of these words. Then if the Pensions Board decide that the minimum degree of disablement occurred immediately on discharge the pension would be dated back. That might be subject to some modification. I think there should be some provision in the Bill to allow of a gratuity, shall I say, by way of commutation, as between the date of the minimum degree of disablement and the date of the passing of the Bill. As it stands, I think it is too hard upon a sick man.

I think it would be impossible to do both the things that Deputy Johnson mentions, to give a gratuity in one case and then to give a pension afterwards. I do not think that would be at all possible or feasible. The reason this other amendment was put in is because we are giving four years to come up to the degree of disablement from the discharge from the Army. There may be some few cases, of course, where men actually left the Army with 80 per cent. disablement. But if the ordinary disease started while the man was in the Army, we give four years from the date of his discharge for the degree of disability to reach the minimum allowed in the Bill. Nobody could tell four years afterwards what a man's condition was at that date. It might have been 20 per cent. disablement. So that on the whole I believe we have put in a reasonable amendment. But if the Deputy insists upon that point I would be quite willing to give the matter further consideration before the Report Stage. I am really of opinion that it will not do much good however. I do not think it can be improved to the extent of giving a gratuity for one portion of the period and a pension afterwards.

I only used the word "gratuity" to indicate a kind of financial method of paying the pension retrospectively. I do not mind how it is done. Probably the Minister is aware of cases which would have come at any time within the last two years within the terms of the Bill only that he has been debarred by the absence of statutory authority from paying such a pension. I do not know whether there are many cases. Probably there are not very many, but it seems to me unfair that we should now be passing this Bill for the purposes of providing pensions in cases of disease, as it appears in this case, and be deliberately saying that every day that we delay in passing the Bill will be a saving to the Exchequer and a loss to the recipient. On the face of the Bill itself, we are admitting that the man is entitled to the pension by virtue of the disease contracted during his service. When the case is clear and the minimum degree of disablement has been on record, it seems to me fair that some payment should be made to that man to meet his actual pecuniary losses during the time he has been disabled through disease. Perhaps if the Minister would look into the matter closely, between now and the Report Stage, it would meet the requirements.

Very well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) Every person who is discharged from the forces on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), and is at the date of his discharge suffering from a disablement caused by disease attributable to service in the forces during the period which commenced on the 1st day of April, 1922, and ended on the 30th day of September, 1924, may, if the degree of such disablement is at the date of such discharge or becomes (otherwise than by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of such person) within four years after such discharge not less than the minimum degree of disablement, be granted a disability pension at the rate specified in that behalf in those provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act which are applicable to the case of such persons.
(3) Every pension-granted under this section shall commence from such date as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall determine, but such date shall not be earlier than—
(a) in the case of a person who is discharged from the forces before the passing of this Act, the date of the passing of this Act, nor
(b) in the case of a person who is discharged from the forces on the day of or after the passing of this Act, the day after the date of such discharge, nor
(c) in any case, the date on which the disablement first amounts to the minimum degree of disablement.

I beg to move:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, lines 62 and 63 to delete the words "is at the date of such discharge or becomes," and in line 64, on page 4, and line 1 on page 5, to delete the words "within four years after such discharge" and substitute for the last-mentioned words, the words "is at the date of his examination by the Army Pensions Board or becomes after such date but within four years after his discharge."

This amendment is to the same effect as amendment No. 13, which has been agreed to.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The following amendment is down in my name:—

In sub-section (3) to delete clauses (a) and (b) and substitute a new clause—

"(a) the day next after the date on which the person to whom the pension is granted was or is discharged from the forces, whether discharge takes place before or after the passing of this Act, nor."

This deals with the same question as that which arose on a previous amendment, and perhaps it should also be postponed.

Amendment not moved.
Question—"That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Every person who was discharged from the forces before the 1st day of October, 1924, and was at the date of such discharge suffering from a disablement due to a wound received on or after the 1st day of October, 1923, while he was a member of the forces and in the course of his duty as such member may, if the degree of such disablement was at the date of such discharge not less than twenty per cent., be granted a wound pension at the rate mentioned in the appropriate column of the Second Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement mentioned in the first column of that schedule.
(2) If a person to whom a pension is granted under this section was married before the date of his discharge from the forces and is at the date of the commencement of such pension a married man for the purposes of this Act then he shall for so long after such commencement as he continues to be a married man for the purposes of this Act be entitled to be paid and receive a married pension at the rate mentioned in the appropriate column of the Second Schedule to this Act opposite to the appropriate degree of disablement mentioned in the first column of that schedule.
(3) Every pension granted under this section shall commence from such date as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall determine but such date shall not in any case be earlier than the day next after the date on which the person to whom the pension was granted was discharged from the forces.
(4) Every person who was discharged from the forces before the 1st day of October, 1924, and was at the date of such discharge suffering from a disablement due to a wound received on or after the 1st day of October, 1923, while he was a member of the forces and in the course of his duty as such member may, if the degree of such disablement was at the date of such discharge less than twenty per cent., be granted a gratuity of such amount as the Minister having regard to all the circumstances of the case shall with the consent of the Minister for Finance determine, but no such gratuity shall, in the case of a person who immediately before his discharge from the forces was an officer, exceed one hundred pounds or, in the case of a person who immediately before his discharge from the forces was a soldier, exceed sixty pounds.
(5) In the case of a person who at the date of his discharge from the forces is suffering from any of the disablements mentioned in the first column of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, the degree of such person's disablement for the purposes of this section shall be the degree set out in the second column of that schedule opposite to the disablement from which such person is so suffering.
(6) In the case of a person who at the date of his discharge from the forces is suffering from a disablement not mentioned in the first column of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, the degree of such person's disablement for the purposes of this section shall be the degree assessed in that behalf by the Army Pensions Board.

A number of amendments are governed by the first amendment in the name of Deputy Davin to this section. They all refer to "in the course of his duty."

On behalf of Deputy Davin, I beg to move:—

In sub-section (1), lines 30 and 31, to delete the words "and in the course of his duty as such member."

This is really preparatory to a further amendment, I think. The section reads that every person who is discharged within a certain date suffering from a disablement due to a wound received on or after 1st day of October, 1923, "while he was a member of the Forces and in the course of his duty as such member——" I think the intention should be that unless there is evidence of misconduct or deliberate negligence wounds received by a man while a member of the Army should make him eligible for a pension. The term "in the course of his duty as such member" might, I think, be interpreted as cutting out cases which would reasonably, taking the cases of workmen's compensation as a parallel, be brought within the scope of the Bill. I think that the eliminating clause should rather have reference to negligence or misconduct and that when a man is a member of the Army, is under the command all the time of, and is responsible to, superior officers for every act of every hour of his service, the risks attaching to that should be subject to liability on the part of the State. Unless there is deliberate misconduct or negligence he should not be excluded. It is on these grounds I move, on behalf of Deputy Davin, that the words be deleted.

I hope the Minister will make it clear whether this amendment is necessary or not, because another argument is that a soldier on active service is always on duty. A case might be shut out from the consideration of the Pensions Board on the grounds that the soldier was not on duty. On the other hand, we know that in other Departments in this State, in the case of a Gárda for instance, it has been held that the Government was not liable for injuries to the member of the Gárda when the Gárda was not on duty. I hope the Minister will make the position clear. I think there is a great deal to be said for Deputy Johnson's argument, but it might not be necessary to make the amendment if a soldier on active service is always on duty. If it is to be construed that at any time he was not actually on parade or was not actually engaged in military operations, under the order of his superior officer, he is liable to be excluded from a pension, by reason of an accidental wound received possibly while ambushing—I do not know if ambushing is excluded— or that he received an injury from a bomb or from a land mine while going on leave——

Or if he was attacked at home while in uniform.

I would like to know if this phrase is to be construed as excluding such men from pensions. I think that is a wrong principle. I should like to know whether it is the contention of the Department of Defence that a soldier on active service can be off duty, or if they accept the principle that has been established elsewhere?

A soldier on active service is always on duty and must be on duty. It is only in the case of volunteers it was decided that a man should have received wounds while he was performing duty. He was not in the same position as a man in a properly organised army. The whole basis of the legislation we are bringing forward is that a man must have been on duty. If a man was wounded in some way or other—it is very hard to say how a man might get wounded or get disease—he might not have been on duty at all and might have been out of the organisation. Anything might have happened to him. The basis of our legislation is duty, and as far as this Bill goes we must have that provision in it. As I pointed out, you are not dealing with a regular army during the whole of the period. You are dealing with the volunteer period, and volunteers will constitute the great majority of the cases coming under this Bill.

I would ask the Minister to note that, in this particular section, we are dealing with wounds received after the 1st October, 1923. Therefore, these must have been Army cases.

That was before the establishment of the Forces.

It was the National Army then, at any rate.

We are legislating for cases for the year up to the 1st October, 1924, and the question is whether a man was on duty in that period. If a man were not on duty in that period and received an injury, it would not be right that the State should have to pay him for that. If the man proves that he was on duty as a soldier or a volunteer he is bound to get a pension if he fulfils the other requirements.

What would happen in a case such as I brought to the Minister's notice where a man was on duty and a rifle went off by accident and he lost his leg as a result of that? That man has already been refused any compensation on the grounds that the accident was due to his own carelessness. Will that man be debarred under this Bill from getting any consideration for the loss of his leg? He lost his leg during the period of his service in the Army in handling a rifle.

If a man through his own wilful negligence or misconduct handled his weapon in such a way that he injured himself——

That was an accident.

If an accident occurred through a man's own wilful misconduct he cannot get a pension. In the case that Deputy Byrne refers to, if it has been proved to the satisfaction of the people who examined him that the man was criminally negligent he could not get a pension, but on the other hand if the rifle went off accidentally, and if it was shown that the man was not negligent in the handling of it, that man would clearly be entitled to a pension.

I think the Minister has missed the point. It has been pointed out that the section deals with wounds received on or after the first October, 1923. Consequently we are dealing with soldiers in uniform. Let us assume that 95 per cent. of the cases would be men in uniform and members of the National Army. As the section reads, if a man were on leave and in uniform, and if he were attacked and suffered as a consequence, it is conceivable that this limiting section would rule him out, because it might be said that the wounds were not received in the course of his duty. I want to make it possible that he will be bound to receive it if all the other circumstances in connection with the case bring him within it. Supposing that this is deleted what harm will come to the purpose of the section? The man was a member of the Forces and was on active service at the time, and I think that all the requirements of the Minister would be met if, instead of these words "and in the course of his duty" some phrase such as that the man had received his wounds by gross misconduct or culpable negligence or something of that kind were introduced showing that he had brought the injuries on himself by his own actions. In the case of a man attacked at home who was still a member of the Army, I think the section as it reads would leave it to the Army Pensions Board to rule him out, and I do not think that is the intention of the Minister or of the Dáil. An interpretation of the section is possible which would put him outside of its provisions.

A man on active service and wearing uniform, whether he was at home or on a day's leave, wouldarly come within the section, but if he went away and that something happened to him in the ordinary course, such, for instance, as an accident while engaged in kicking football, well he would not come within the section and would not be entitled to a wound pension.

We are prepared to look into it to see if the case Deputy Johnson makes is right, but I should say not. In the case of a man wearing his uniform and carrying out orders it could be claimed for him that he was on duty and was discharging his duty as a soldier. There is the other case, that any accident that happened to a man outside of his duty as a soldier would be covered if the amendment were carried. I do not think it is Deputy Johnson's intention to give greater consideration to the soldier than is given to a man in the Civil Service. I am sure it is not the Deputy's intention to cover cases where a soldier, say, met with an accident by slipping on the footpath or where he was run down by a tram or something like that. These cases are altogether different.

I realised from the beginning that the mere deletion of the section would not be enough. I think, however, it would be unsatisfactory if it were left in its present form, because it leaves the possible interpretation which would rule out a man who was wounded, even wounded by an attack of the enemy, although he was a member of the National Army. I ask that the matter should be further considered.

I would point out that a man who handles his rifle negligently is extremely unlikely to shoot himself, but he is likely to shoot one of his comrades. You may have the case where a man handles his rifle negligently in the barrack room and wounds a man who may be asleep in bed. That man may not be in uniform at all. I do not know if you could say that that man was on duty. I think all that Deputy Johnson is suggesting is that there might be some reconsideration of the wording of the section so as to make it plain that it will apply to any man serving as a soldier: that he was on duty and was wounded by reason of his service as a soldier without there being culpable negligence or wilful neglect. That is the principle that Deputy Johnson is arguing for, and perhaps the Minister would agree to consider it before the Report Stage.

With regard to the case that Deputy Cooper has cited, if a man was in barracks and whether he was in uniform or not you would have to regard him as a soldier. If he was wounded there, you would, of course, have to take all the circumstances into account. I will look into the matter and see if I can get any other form of words to make the matter clearer. I am satisfied, however, that the section as worded is all right without any amendment, but I am prepared to look into it further.

The case I have in mind is that of a young soldier in Amiens Street Post Office in 1923 or 1924. There was a raid on the Post Office. This young soldier was in the basement, washing at the time, when the signal went that brought them together. He rushed to where his rifle was on a rack. He was not aware that his rifle was loaded; he turned the rifle down to get it ready for loading, and the shot went through his leg, which had to be taken off as a result. Later he got a letter stating that there was no fund at the disposal of the Army to meet such cases, and that the loss of the leg was due to his own carelessness. That young boy is going around the streets of Dublin to-day. Is there nothing to be done for him?

The Minister said at a previous date that it was his intention and that of the Ministry to deal with all cases of hardship. I think that being so, he might revise the wording of the clause so as to cover all cases of real hardship. I will give a case in point. During the 1922-23 period, in a portion of Offaly, soldiers on their way to Mass were attacked; two were killed and a couple wounded. I wonder would the board under the wording of this particular clause say that that was in the course of the soldier's duty?

Certainly.

We could not say otherwise.

I brought a couple of cases before the notice of the Minister, and I agree in one case it could be argued there was negligence. The reason why I brought these particular cases to the notice of the Minister at the time was that after the soldier was shot nothing whatsoever was done to investigate the matter at the time, and it was only when a demand was made for funeral expenses, or for some gratuity by the widowed mother, that an Army inquiry was held. Seeing the soldier was shot dead in the circumstances I previously recited, I hold that was a case for a coroner's inquiry. No military investigation was held into the matter until a demand for a gratuity was made. I believe if the Minister had discretion with regard to that matter he might review the circumstances of the particular case and the deletion of the words referred to here. I will agree to a form of wording which, if the Minister can suggest it, will give the Minister absolute discretion and enable him to deal with all cases of real hardship. If the Minister promises to look into the wording of it, I hope he will take into consideration that I am claiming nothing, more or less, than that these words should be deleted to give him a discretion to review cases which have been turned down and which are cases of real hardship.

I would not go to the length of saying that it should give the Minister absolute discretion. In Deputy Byrne's case a military inquiry must have been held, and they must have felt that this man was negligent in the handling of the rifle when he met with that unfortunate accident. No one deplores those things more than I, but, after all has been said and done, you must draw the line somewhere.

Mr. BYRNE

The circumstances were a raid on the post office and a rush to get a rifle that was in the post office; the rifle goes off by accident and the man loses his leg. Is not that a case for sympathetic consideration? Think of the circumstances of the time before using the word "carelessness."

Let us see what the Minister's position is. If a court of inquiry gives a decision that there was negligence, the Minister has no discretion; he is bound by it. The question is whether you are going to give the Minister power to rule out military decisions come to by military officers; that is an extension of the purposes of the Bill. It means that the Minister would be pilloried here unless he turned down every disciplinary decision given.

The case I mention was of a young man who was shot; no inquiry was made at the time until a claim was put in for some gratuity by the widowed mother of the young fellow. I would have been satisfied if an inquiry was made at the time, and if soldiers in a particular barracks were called to give evidence. I do not think the President would take exception to a form of wording which would give the Minister absolute discretion and leave it in his hands to say whether it was a case of negligence or not.

I want to remind the Minister that if ordinary employed people meet with an accident while actually engaged in their work they are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even if they meet with the accident "while going to or coming from their work." Why should not soldiers who are serving with you get it if they meet with an accident? A soldier will not get it, notwithstanding that he may have a wife with two or three children, if he loses a leg or an arm whilst in your employment. I call it "employment" because only for the number of unemployed in Ireland you would not have such a number of recruits.

Are we discussing employment?

You are the employer.

The Deputy should address the Chair.

I am addressing you.

I have not any soldiers employed.

I hold that whilst those men are acting in his service as soldiers of the National Army that they are actually engaged in his employment, and where those men meet with an accident, whether due to their own fault or that of their comrades, they are entitled to compensation. Whilst they are engaged with you, you must be looked upon as their employer; consequently you should treat them as employees.

Would the Deputy agree to the insertion in this Bill of the words in the Workmen's Compensation Act?

I should like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to explain what section of the Act he means.

There are seven amendments in the name of Deputy Davin all dealing with the deletion of the words "and in the course of his duty." A certain point of view which the Deputy has put forward on this amendment I think covers the position generally. Is the position now that this amendment is being withdrawn and the other amendments are not being moved, and that the Minister is possibly to bring in another amendment on which the whole question will arise? Of course, Deputy Davin's rights remain.

I am prepared to withdraw on the Minister's assurance.

Very well.

I do not think the Deputy should withdraw the amendment on any Minister's assurance. I think he should get some better guarantee than an assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 18:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, line 31, to delete the word "was" and substitute the word "is", and in line 32 to delete the words "such discharge" and substitute the words "his examination by the Army Pensions Board."

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 19 not moved.

I move amendment 20:—

In sub-section (4), page 5, line 58 to delete the word "was" and substitute the word "is", and in lines 58 and 59 to delete the words "such discharge" and substitute the words "his examination by the Army Pensions Board."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12. (1) and (4).
(1) Every person who is discharged from the Forces on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) and is at the date of such discharge suffering from a disablement due to a wound received on or after the 1st day of October, 1923 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while he was a member of the Forces and in the course of his duty as such member may, if the degree of such disablement is at the date of such discharge not less than twenty per cent., be granted a wound pension at the rate specified in that behalf in those provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act which are applicable to the case of such person.
(4) Every person who is discharged from the forces on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) and is at the date of his discharge suffering from a disablement due to a wound received on or after the 1st day of October, 1923 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while he was a member of the Forces and in the course of his duty as such member may, if the degree of such disablement is at the date of such discharge less than twenty per cent., be granted—...

I move amendment 21:—

In sub-section (1), page 6, line 21, to delete the words "such discharge" and substitute the words "his examination by the Army Pensions Board or on behalf of the Minister (as the case may be)."

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 22 not moved.

I move amendment 23:—

In sub-section (4), page 6, line 52, to delete the words "such discharge" and substitute the words "his examination by the Army Pensions Board or on behalf of the Minister (as the case may be)."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12. (1) and (3).
(1) Any person who is certified by the Minister to have been a member of the Irish Volunteers or of the Irish Citizen Army and is at the passing of this Act suffering from a disablement caused by disease attributable to military service in the Irish Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army (as the case may be) or to such military service and service in the forces during the period which commenced on the 1st day of April, 1922, and ended on the 30th day of September, 1924, may, if the degree of his disablement is at the passing of this Act not less than the minimum degree of disablement, be granted a disability pension at the following rate, that is to say:—
(3) Every pension granted under this section shall commence from such date, not being earlier than the passing of this Act, as the Minister having regard to all the circumstances of the case shall determine.

I move amendment 24:—

In sub-section (1), page 7, in line 21, and also in line 27, to delete the words "passing of this Act" and substitute the words "date of his examination by the Army Pensions Board."

Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy Johnson:—
In sub-section (3), line 54, to delete the words "not being earlier than the passing of this Act."

This is a similar question to that raised earlier which the Minister promised to consider.

The same thing will govern this.

Perhaps I might say that the need for this is a little more emphasised in this section, because the suffering from the disease might have dated back to 1916.

Amendment not moved.
Question proposed: That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

On the section, I want to ask the Minister for a little light, because, I think, this section is liable to interpretation in more ways than one. So far as I have been able to find, there is no definition of "Irish Volunteers," or of when the Irish Volunteers ceased to exist, or what constituted the Irish Volunteers. I take it that it is entirely within the discretion of the Minister for the time being to determine whether a person was a member of an organisation called the Irish Volunteers. I do not know whether it is argued that the Irish Volunteers ceased to exist, let us say in 1922, or whether the Irish Volunteers continued to exist, and even yet have not been disbanded. I do not know whether this really interprets the Minister's mind, because, as I read it, pensions might be paid under this section to members of the organisation known as the Irish Volunteers in any circumstances, say, during the last few years. I do not think that is the intention. If it is, I think it should be made more clear. If it is not the intention, there should be some definition clause. "Irish Volunteers" is interpreted as the Irish Republican Army in some cases, I think. At one point the Irish Volunteers became the Irish Republican Army. Is the Minister making any strict line of demarcation, and is there any definition of what constituted the Irish Volunteers, or is it to be left to a future Minister for Defence to determine whether a particular man was a member of an organisation called the Irish Volunteers? I should like to have it clear what the Minister's mind is in the matter and then we can consider whether, in fact, the section carries out what the Minister's intentions are. For instance, there are men who have received wounds or suffered disablement due to service in volunteer forces in England or Scotland, or in other parts of Ireland. Are they intended to come within the scope of the Bill? I think that the whole matter requires elucidation and clarification.

So far as the Irish Volunteers are concerned, they were in existence until the 1st April, 1922, when the National Army came into existence. Any man, to be qualified, must get a certificate from the Minister for Defence. The Minister must certify him as being a member of the Volunteers prior to that date, after due inquiries have been made. If there is not an official record, due inquiries are made from people in a position to give any evidence about the case. The certificate is based on that evidence. If he gets a certificate from the Minister he is entitled to recognition as a member of the Volunteers. There is no limitation as far as the North of Ireland is concerned, or England or Scotland, or any place. If the man was in the Volunteers he gets a certificate as such, and he will be entitled to get a pension.

Is the Minister clear that this date that he names does really limit the period of existence of the Irish Volunteers? Is there a statutory definition, or is it merely a matter of departmental decision as to when the Irish Volunteers ceased to exist?

The National Army came into existence on that date and for all purposes that I know of the Volunteers ceased to exist when the National Army was formed. The National Army was in existence then until the 1st October, 1924, when the Defence Forces came into operation, so that the periods are pretty clear cut. A man who was in the Volunteers, if he so desired, came into the National Army. If he did not come into the National Army he ceased to be a Volunteer, so far as this Bill is concerned, on the 1st April, 1922, when the National Army was formed.

I know the Minister's intention now, but I venture to say that this section does not embody his intention, and I would urge him to look into the matter and see that it does, in fact, carry out his intention, and not leave the discretion to a future Minister.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(1) A gratuity of such amount as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine may be granted on or on account of the death of any person to whom this sub-section applies to such one or more as the Minister shall determine of the dependents mentioned in the appropriate Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act of such person. This sub-section applies to—
(a) every person who died before the 1st day of October, 1924, while serving in the forces and whose death was due solely to disease attributable to service in the Forces during the period (in this sub-section called "the said period") which commenced on the 1st day of April, 1922, and ended on the 30th day of September, 1924, and
(b) every person who having served in the forces during the said period and been discharged therefrom before the 1st day of October, 1924, dies (whether before or after the passing of this Act) within four years after such discharge and so dies solely from disease attributable to service in the forces during the said period, and
(c) every person who, not having served in the forces, died before the 7th day of December, 1922, and is certified by the Minister to have been a member of the Irish Volunteers or of the Irish Citizen Army and whose death was due solely to disease attributable to his military service in the Irish Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army (as the case may be), and
(d) every person who is certified by the Minister to have been a member of the Irish Volunteers or of the Irish Citizen Army and, having served in the forces, either died before the 1st day of October, 1924, while so serving or was discharged from the forces before the 1st day of October, 1924, and died (whether before or after the passing of this Act) within four years after such discharge and in any case so died solely from disease attributable to military service in the Irish Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army (as the case may be) or to such military service and service in the forces during the said period, and
(e) every person who, having been immediately before his death in receipt of a disability pension granted to him under this Act in accordance with the scale of pensions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act, dies solely from the disease in respect of which such pension was granted.
(2) A gratuity of such amount as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine may be granted on or on account of the death of any person to whom this sub-section applies to such one or more as the Minister shall determine of the widow and children of such person.
This sub-section applies to—
(a) every person who dies (whether before or after the passing of this Act) on or after the 1st day of October, 1924, while serving in the forces and whose death is due solely to disease attributable to service in the forces during the period (in this sub-section called "the said period") which commenced on the 1st day of April, 1922, and ended on the 30th day of September, 1924, and
(b) every person who, having served in the forces during the said period, is discharged therefrom on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), and dies within four years after such discharge and so dies solely from disease attributable to service in the forces during the said period, and
(c) every person who is certified by the Minister to have been a member of the Irish Volunteers or of the Irish Citizen Army and, having served in the forces during the said period, either dies on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), while so serving or is discharged from the forces on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), and dies within four years after such discharge and, in any case, so dies solely from disease attributable to military service in the Irish Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army (as the case may be) or to such military service and service in the forces during the said period, and (d) every person who, having been immediately before his death in receipt of a disability pension granted to him under this Act in accordance with the scale of pensions contained in the Third Schedule to this Act and also of a married pension payable to him under this Act, dies solely from the disease in respect of which such disability pension was granted.

I beg to move amendment 26.

In sub-section (1), page 8, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:—

"(1) The Minister may, on or on account of the death of any person to whom this sub-section applies, do either but not both of the following things, that is to say:—

(i) grant to such one or more as the Minister shall determine of the dependents mentioned in the appropriate Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act of such person a gratuity of such amount as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine, or

(ii) grant to the widow and children of such person the several allowances and gratuities specified in the appropriate Part of the Sixth Schedule to this Act in respect of widows and children."

This new section makes it possible for us to provide an allowance as well as a gratuity. Under the sub-section as it stood in the Bill it was only possible to provide for a gratuity to be paid. We have changed that, and we make it possible to pay an allowance in substitution for a gratuity, and we think that is the proper procedure. The new sub-section makes it possible to grant an allowance or a pension in some cases which was not possible under the old system.

I think this new sub-section is a great improvement upon the section as originally drafted, but I think it might be further improved. The amended section provides that the grant must be either and not both, that is to say, either a grant or a pension can be given to the dependents or the widow and the children. I can imagine that a better service would be rendered if it were possible to say so much in the form of a grant to the individual and so much in the form of an allowance to the dependents. That is done in the case of awards under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I think it is practical and would be beneficial.

I could not agree to that suggestion. It must be a gratuity or an allowance. I could not agree to pay both in the same case. As I said already, the sub-section is a great improvement on the one that it replaces, and we could not go any further.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 27:—

In sub-section (1), line 10, to delete the word "solely."

This raises a question which runs right through sub-sections (1) and (2) and in regard to which there are several amendments on the Paper, but I think all these amendments might be decided on this one. The sub-section applies to "every person who died before the 1st day of October, 1924, while serving in the forces and whose death was due solely to disease attributable to service in the forces during the period" aforesaid. The introduction of the word "solely" in other sub-sections seems to me to be even more unfortunate.

The question whether the disease was solely attributable to service in the forces is, I think, almost impossible to decide. It would make it possible for the Minister to refuse a pension or gratuity unless a doctor or doctors could give an absolutely clean certificate that no complication of any kind entered into the applicant's disease. A person suffers from sickness, say measles in childhood, and certain organs of the body are weakened thereby. Service in the National Army causes a different complaint, but there is a complication due to the fact of this other organic weakness. Unless the doctor can certify that there is no such complication it is possible under this section to eliminate the applicant.

That is not the intention, but it seems to me it is unnecessarily and unduly limiting the scope of the Bill and that if we said "whose death was due to diseases attributable to service in the forces" it is quite sufficient and all you want to cover the matter. Putting in the word "solely" seems to gratuitously suggest to the Army Pensions Board that they have no need to give a verdict in favour of the applicant unless they get such a certificate from a doctor as would preclude the possibility that there is any complication due to earlier disease. It seems to me that there is no value in the word for the purpose of securing the Minister's object. The value of it or the inutility of it lies in the fact that it is going to make it possible to wipe out perhaps three-fourths of the applicants.

Very few men die from one organic trouble. There is complication in the case of most men, and as far as I have been able to see, nearly all the doctors certify in the case of death a multiple number of causes. I think it is an undue restriction and limitation of the applicant's right to put in this word "solely." I do not think it is desirable, and I think it goes much further than the Minister's intention. I hope he will agree to its deletion.

I cannot agree to this amendment, because it is taken for granted that a man who gets his pension suffered from a disease which must be solely due to his service. Take the case of a man who may have come into the Army with 10 or 20 per cent. disease without being examined. That disease becomes aggravated, and then he gets some other disease while serving in the Army. It would be possible, if we did what Deputy Johnson suggests, that the Army Pensions Board could tot up these two forms of disease and make it 80 per cent., and that would not be fair to the State.

There is no question of 80 per cent. in this section. The section relates to death of any person.

The real question that we have to face is that which has agitated us since the forces came into being, namely, that there was no medical examination at first when people came into the service. If there was an examination at all it was only very cursory. Nobody disputes the fact that there was no real examination and that several people came into the forces that would not have been taken into the forces in the ordinary way, and to ask that we should be responsible for everything that happened to them after that date is too much.

Where a man comes into the defence force at the present time and is properly examined and a medical officer certifies that he is fit he will be entitled in the ordinary way to a pension under this Bill, but in the case of people who came in without any examination at all the State must really guard itself. To do what the Deputy asks in this amendment would be to open the door very wide. I am sure Deputy Johnson would not like to bring in under it classes of people that he does not intend. We must be as careful of the money of the State as we would be of our own, and as far as I can see, if we were to accept this amendment we would be incurring a very grave commitment. I do not believe that the retention of the word "solely" will embarrass any person if the disease was attributable solely to service, and we are not catering for any disease except what was "solely" attributable to the service. A man might have disease of any kind and he might grow worse as time went on. Military service does not, except in exceptional circumstances, tend to accentuate disease. Army life is a healthy life. A man suffering from disease would probably become worse in ordinary civilian employment than he would as a soldier under normal conditions. He would probably be better houses in the barracks and, in many cases, he would be better fed and have a better chance of recovery than if he followed a civilian occupation. I cannot agree to the amendment.

It will be very difficult for the dependents of a deceased man to prove, under this section, that the disease which caused his death was solcly attributable to service. Take the case of a man who, in every other respect, seemed healthy but who, at the time of his joining the forces, had a tendency to rheumatism. If, during the course of service, that tendency is aggravated by adverse weather conditions or otherwise, and if that man dies of rheumatroid arthritis, it will be very difficult for his dependents to prove that his death was solely due to service. At the time he entered he might have been prone to such a disease, and the service that he was engaged in might possibly have aggravated it. I think the wording of the section is particularly harsh, and that it makes it almost impossible for the applicants who, in these cases, will be the dependents of the deceased man, to prove that death was due solely to conditions of service. I think the Minister might unbend a little and be somewhat more lenient, having regard to the fact that applicants will be bound strictly by the wording of the section. I think the Minister has gone a bit too far in framing this section and that it would not be asking too much to omit the word "solely," as suggested in the amendment. If the section remains as it is, it will undoubtedly rule out a large number of cases where men died through causes mainly attributable to service, but not solely attributable to it.

We ought to get this matter into perspective. The point to start from is that, in view of the circumstances, it is a very big step for the Government to provide for disease allowances at all. We had an Army which was flung together hurriedly. It was not a case of bringing men into a frame already in existence. The organisation was not already there. The Army was hastily brought together. Men were brought in after little examination, or without medical examination at all. They were not subject, during their course of service, to normal medical supervision. The result is bound to be—as I indicated at an earlier stage—that a great many people will manage to establish claims whose applications, if all the facts were known, would be rejected. They will be able to bring forward a volume of personal testimony which it will not be possible to reject, though, if all the facts could be brought to light, it would be found that the members of the Army concerned had previously suffered from disease which was bound to become aggravated even apart from military service. If you strike this word out in the section you will be simply giving an invitation to your Board to pass all sorts of applications, even where there is the gravest possible doubt. There is bound to be grave doubt in almost all these cases. In all the circumstances, to ask applicants to establish that the disease was due solely to military service is the least that can be done. It is not right that we should pay because a disease became worse during military service. In ordinary civil life, disease commonly becomes aggravated, although the diseased person has to endure no hardships. We should remember that there were not great hardships suffered in the National Army at all. We cannot compare them with the hardships suffered by troops in the trenches during the Great War. There was a period of general active service, but it was active service under guerilla conditions.

Although the troops were not housed in ideal conditions, they were generally provided with shelter and reasonably fed. It is most probable that where disease became aggravated during military service it did not become aggravated to any greater extent or any more rapidly than it would have become if the person concerned had remained in civil life. It is unreasonable that the taxpayer should be asked to pay for illness which occurred in the Army but which would equally have occurred if the individual concerned had not joined the Army. All these applications are bound to be enveloped in a good deal of doubt. It was with considerable hesitation that the Government, having regard to their duty not merely to the individual who suffered illness but to the taxpayer, finally agreed to include disease cases at all. I feel that we ought not to be pushed into the position of paying for disease unless it is established that it was solely due to service.

We speak at some disadvantage here because I do not think there is any Deputy present who served in the National Army. I must, however, take up the challenge of the Minister for Finance about the hardships suffered by men in the National Army. If I am correctly informed, during the greater period in which active operations were in progress, these men had only one uniform and, sometimes, only a civilian suit of clothes. They were operating very largely in the West of Ireland in a wet climate. Day after day, they got wet through. Day after day, they came into any shelter their officers could find for them and they lay down in these wet clothes until the wet clothes dried. Next day they went out and got soaked again. Their clothes had to dry on them again. The men of the National Army did not have some of the amenities that the British troops in France had. They did not have the brazier and other arrangements that the British troops had in France. They did not have arrangements for being taken back for rest, bathing and re-fitting. The medical service was in a more rudimentary condition than in the case of the British Army. If continually getting wet and sleeping in wet clothes is not conducive to rheumatism, I do not know what is. I know of no disease that unfits a poor man for employment more than rheumatism. I think it is a mistake to ride off with the suggestion that it is a great concession to give a man a pension because he has contracted disease in the Army. As a matter of fact, this section deals with gratuities, but the Minister for Finance has led me away. I can conceive a man setting up the seeds of tuberculosis under these conditions. I can conceive a man even dying of tuberculosis under these conditions. I do not think we should take up the position that it is a great concession on our part to do anything for the dependents of such a man. I have known cases of British pensioners who have suffered far more from disease than a man who loses an arm or a leg. Once the claim can be established we ought to treat these men generously and not say: "You were driving a hackney car before you enlisted and you were liable to get wet. That occupation was liable to set up the seeds of rheumatism and your Army service only aggravated it." I hope this amendment will be forced to a division.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision, and to accept the amendment in the form suggested by Deputy Redmond, deleting the word "solely" and inserting instead "mainly due." The Minister referred to cases where men were suffering from disease before they joined the Army and who in the ordinary way might have died from the disease, even if they had no military service. It is, however, hard to conceive how a man in civil life would go out night after night and lie down, exposed to rain, as our young soldiers did. I know the case of a young soldier who was repeatedly asked to go to the base but would not do so, because he was afraid he would be thought a coward. The officer had to bring him to the base. That soldier contracted inflammation of the kidneys and was a very bad case. When I put the facts before the Minister he could do nothing for him. Fortunately the man is not dead. If a man was suffering from some slight disability due to disease before joining the Army, surely that would be aggravated by Army service, such as there was during the troubled time here. To adhere to the word "solely" in the section means cutting out the dependents of men who died for the State. I do not think that is the intention of the Minister, and, for that reason, I ask him to reconsider his decision and do justice in these cases.

As the Minister says, it is true, generally, that the experience of the soldiers who served in the National Army was more or less a holiday experience compared to the hardships that were endured by men who served on the western front during the European war. That does not mean, as the Minister knows, that hardships were not encountered which led to the death of men who served in the National Army. Two types of cases came under the notice of Deputies in connection with the previous Acts, and were turned down. I know one case where a man joined the National Army and met with an accident on the western front during the civil war, 1922-23. His stomach was injured and he was eventually taken to St. Bricin's Hospital. He was subsequently brought to Peamount Sanatorium, where he died. The local people put forward proof to show that none of that man's relatives suffered from or had died from tuberculosis. If the word "solely" is left in the section it will prevent the dependents of that man getting any gratuity. This was a case for gratuity only. Another case is that of a young man in Deputy Cooper's constituency. He was an old I.R.A. man. He joined the National Army in 1922-23 and was sent with other soldiers to Thompson's Garage in Pearse Street. I understand that for a few days there were no beds provided. This young soldier contracted rheumatism, which led to his death. In that case I heard that it could be stated some of the man's relatives had died from tuberculosis. These two cases are directly opposite, but it could be argued that the deaths were not due solely to military service. To any average Deputy I think they are the kind of cases in which something should be done where there are direct dependents.

If the Dáil agreed to give good pensions to young men who are now in other employment, who served in pre-truce days and in the National Army, but came out physically fit, I think a case has been made for the granting of a gratuity in the type of case to which I have referred, where death was due, not solely but to some extent to activity in 1922-23. If the word "solely" is left in the section cases of that kind will be cut out. I do not believe it is the intention of the Minister to be unjust to the dependents of men whose death was brought about under the circumstances referred to. The principal opposition I believe arises from the fact that a number of cases will be brought up where young men suffering from tuberculosis joined the National Army. They were allowed in without medical examination, and their deaths occurred during service or after leaving the Army. I wonder how many people died during service from tuberculosis, or after discharge from the Army, from the same disease. I would be surprised to hear that a great number did. I know ex-British Army men who joined the National Army and who were actually in receipt of wound pensions when they joined. They were suffering from wounds and probably in some cases disease. Cases of that kind could be brought forward if the Bill was not tightly drawn, but I suggest that the word "solely" would cut out every case for a gratuity. Every Deputy will admit that that would be a great hardship. The Co. Dublin case to which I referred is that of an old I.R.A. man from Dun Laoghaire who joined the National Army. He died and left a widow and two children, one being posthumous. Is a case of that kind to be cut out? If the word "solely" is left in it will. I ask Deputies to vote for the deletion of that word, as otherwise cases they would like to see fairly dealt with will be cut out.

I am afraid the supporters and opponents of the amendment are arguing for something different from its intention or effect. If the amendment is carried the sub-section will read: "Every person who died before the 1st day of October, 1924, while serving in the Forces, and whose death was due to disease attributable to service..." It is incumbent on the applicant or his dependents to satisfy the authorities that the death was due to disease attributable to service. That is if the amendment is carried. But if the word "solely" remains in, there must be no possibility of other complication, any organic weakness, which might be a factor in bringing about the man's death. Two men equally good as soldiers, one having had a certain weakness which would never be evident but for service, or for some additional disease contracted during service, dies in consequence. The doctor gives a certificate showing that death was due to so and so, plus so and so.

There is no direct relationship. One has nothing to do with service in the National Army, but there are two things, one added to the other, causing death. Now, when you leave in the word "solely" you make it impossible for that man or for his dependents to receive any allowance or gratuity. The acceptance of the amendment would not satisfy Deputy Redmond or the others who have supported the amendment, because it would not make it possible to pay a pension or to give a gratuity to the dependents of persons whose death was due to disease, mainly due to service, or in cases where there was an aggravation of the existing disease at another point. It may be argued that it is not the case in question here where death was due to disease attributable to service. It may be said that such a person's disease may have been aggravated by service, but it was not due to service.

The result of the amendment I am proposing to insert would not bring that person in. However desirable it may be is a matter for argument at another time. The amendment I am moving is designed to remove this limitation whereby it would have to be made clear on the death certificate that there was no other organic combination or combination of organic illness that led to death. It is a medical matter and I am, perhaps, presuming too much to talk in this way; but as a layman, looking at the matter from the ordinary understanding of the written word, when we put in the words "death due solely to disease attributable," it is going to make it impossible to pay a pension to the dependents of a man whose death is due to disease attributable to service in the Army, but possibly complicated by another disease or weakness which was the result of some childish ailment and yet would not leave him a clean bill.

I think the Minister is unwise, and he is meeting a different case from that which I am making. The case which he is meeting is one that is not involved in this particular amendment. I ask the Minister to read the paragraph with the word deleted and he will see that it still remains that death must be due to disease attributable to service.

Perhaps if you take this word where it appears in the paragraph, there is not so very much in it, but it goes right through the whole of the Bill. Now, take the case of a man who has been dead for three or four years. His dependents would come in to get a gratuity or pension under this Bill. You must take the evidence. You have not the subject before you. No doctor can examine him. You have the death certificate on the one hand, and you will have the evidence, perhaps, of the doctor who attended him. You will have the evidence of any medical officer in the Army who attended him or came in contact with him and you will have the Army records. Different classes of cases are bound to crop up of people who cannot be examined themselves, and it will be a question of what evidence can be produced that will satisfy the board that the man, whose dependents are claiming, died of a disease that was solely attributable to his service in the Army.

The Minister is misinterpreting his own section. He says "dies from disease solely attributable." These words are not in the section at all. The words are "due solely to disease attributable." There is a shade of difference there. The death is due to one cause, and one cause only. It is not a disease due to one cause only, but death due to one cause only in the section as it reads.

Even if you take it that way, you must come down to the plain fact that you cannot have a multiplicity of diseases that, perhaps, the man has been suffering from for years, for these were not diseases that were attributable to his service in the Army and in the end caused death. Surely the Deputy does not expect that a pension should be given in a case of that kind. When they look at the broad facts of the case, I think Deputies will agree that it is quite legitimate that the amendment cannot be accepted because it would undoubtedly bring in a great many cases and open the door very wide, and it would be impossible to administer the section properly.

We are all human enough, every one of us, and the board of doctors will be quite human, too, I am sure. As far as I know about them, in cases where they come to hear pension claims or anything else, they do not strain the Act or the section. If there is a benefit to be given, they will, I believe, always give it to the applicant, and on that account alone I think it is quite right and wise to have the section drawn as tightly as possible. The applicant will get whatever benefit there is to be given out of it. I am sorry that so many Deputies have taken a different view from my view, but I cannot accept the amendment.

The Minister speaks about a board of doctors giving the applicant the benefit of the Act. If the Minister will look at the section he will observe that it refers to persons who died before 1st October, 1924. The doctor who gave a certificate in that case had not in mind the benefit of any Act, because there was no Act.

I am speaking about the doctors who will compose the Army Pensions Board.

The doctors on the Army Pensions Board will know nothing about the cause of death beyond what is contained in the certificate of the doctor who issued the death certificate. The members of the Army Pensions Board are not going to exhume the body and examine the organs of a man who died in 1924.

I do not suggest that.

Let me draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the State is offering the dependents of its servants who incurred disease and died in its service very much less generous terms than the law imposes on private employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act—there is a British decision which, I think, is binding on us—if the death of the employee is accelerated in the smallest degree by his service to the employer, the employer becomes liable; but here death must be due solely to disease attributable to service of the State. Here we are treating the dependents of servants of the State less generously than the private employer will treat the dependents of his workmen.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 17; Níl, 48.

  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • William Norton.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • William A. Redmond.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • John J. Cole.
  • John Conlan.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Patrick McKenna.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Seán Príomhdhall.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Davin and Colohan. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.

On behalf of Deputy Morrissey I move the following amendment.

In sub-section (1), line 19, to delete the word "solely."

Amendment put and negatived.

I beg to move the following amendment:—

In sub-section (1) (c), page 8, line 22, to delete the yords "7th day of December, 1922," and substitute the words "11th day of July, 1925."

The latter date puts the dependents of Volunteers in the same position as if the men were in the National Army. It is an improvement on the 7th December, 1922; it will give them a longer time.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 30 (Mr. Johnson):—
"In sub-section (1), line 25, to delete the word "solely"—not moved.
Amendment 31 (Mr. Johnson):—
"In sub-section (1), line 35, to delete the word "solely"—not moved.

I move:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, to delete lines 46 to 50 and substitute the following:—

"(2) The Minister may, on or on account of the death of any person to whom this sub-section applies, do either but not both of the following things, that is to say:—

(i) grant to such one or more as the Minister shall determine of the widow and children of such person a gratuity of such amount as the Minister shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine, or

(ii) grant to the widow and children of such person the several allowances and gratuities specified in the appropriate part of the Seventh Schedule to this Act in respect of widows and children."

This amendment provides for the granting of allowances or gratuities on a graduated scale specified in Schedule 7. It is similar to an amendment we had before.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 33 (Mr. Johnson):—"In sub-section (2), line 55, to delete the word "solely"—not moved.
Amendment 34 (Mr. Johnson)—"In sub-section (2), line 64, to delete the word "solely"—not moved.
Amendment 35 (Mr. Johnson)—"In sub-section (2), page 9, line 6, to delete the word "solely"—not moved.

I move:—

Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) The amount of any gratuity payable under this section may at the discretion of the Minister be paid in a single sum or be paid in instalments of such amount and at such times as the Minister thinks expedient having regard to the circumstances of the case, or with the consent of the Minister for Finance may be invested and be applied, both as to interest and principal, for the benefit of the person to whom the gratuity is payable as the Minister thinks expedient having regard to the circumstances of the case."

This point has been covered by the Minister's amendment.

I accept the principle of the amendment, and I will undertake to bring in some form of wording which will meet the case on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The next three amendments are consequential. I move:—

In sub-section (4), page 9, line 24, before the word "gratuity," to insert the words "allowance or."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In sub-section (5), page 9, line 27, before the word "gratuity," to insert the words "allowance or."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In sub-section (6), page 9, line 34, to delete the word "Schedule" and substitute the words "and Sixth Schedules."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(7) Every allowance granted under this section on account of the death of a person who died before the 1st day of April, 1926, shall commence on that date, and every allowance granted under this section on or on account of the death of a person who dies on or after the 1st day of April, 1926 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) shall commence on the day after the day on which such person so dies."

We are providing to go back twelve months from the passing of the Act in certain cases, and payment will commence on the date specified in the amendment. The amendment is in favour of applicants.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 14 as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) The several allowances and gratuities specified in the appropriate part of the Sixth Schedule to this Act may be granted to the widow, children, dependents, and partial dependents of any of the following persons, that is to say:—
(a) every person who while serving in the forces was killed on or after the 1st day of October, 1923, and before the 1st day of October, 1924, in the course of his duty as a member of the forces, and
(b) every person who while serving in the forces received on or after the 1st day of October, 1923, and before the 1st day of October, 1924, a wound in the course of his duty as a member of the forces and died before the 1st day of October, 1924, solely from such wound while still serving in the forces, and
(c) every person who while serving in the forces received on or after the 1st day of October, 1923, and before the 1st day of October, 1924, a wound in the course of his duty as a member of the forces and was discharged from the forces before the 1st day of October, 1924, and dies (whether before or after the passing of this Act) solely from such wound within four years after receiving such wound, and
(d) every person who having served in the forces was discharged therefrom before the 1st day of October and dies (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while in receipt of a wound pension granted to him under this Act and also of a married pension payable to him under this Act and so dies solely from the wound in respect of which such wound pension was so granted to him.
(2) The several allowances and gratuities specified in the appropriate Part of the Seventh Schedule to this Act may be granted to the widow and children of any of the following persons, that is to say:—
(a) every person who while serving in the forces is killed on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in the course of his duty as a member of the forces, and
(b) every person who while serving in the forces receives on or after the 1st day of October, 1923 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) a wound in the course of his duty as a member of the forces and dies solely from such wound while serving in the forces and so dies on or after the 1st day of October, 1924, but within four years after receiving such wound, and
(c) every person who while serving in the forces receives on or after the 1st day of October, 1923 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) a wound in the course of his duty as a member of the forces and, having been discharged from the forces on or after the 1st day of October, 1924, dies solely from such wound within four years after receiving such wound, and
(d) every person who having served in the forces is discharged therefrom on or after the 1st day of October, 1924 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), and dies while in receipt of a wound pension granted to him under this Act, and also of a married pension payable to him under this Act and so dies solely from the wound in respect of which such wound pension was granted to him.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 55, to delete the word "solely."

I take it that the decision come to in regard to this amendment will cover subsequent amendments in my name. The idea is to make provision for this particular type of case that might arise in this way. Take the case of a man who gets wounded and, subsequent to his discharge from the Army, gets a severe cold. The state of his health which has been caused by a bullet wound leads to disease and he dies. The difficulty in that case would be that it would be almost impossible to prove that the man died solely from wounds. If that type of case is not met by the Bill the dependents will get no compensation. It is a reasonable type of case and one that will be met with frequently when this Bill becomes an Act, so that it should be provided for. If the Minister presents this Bill as an attempt to settle the whole question on broad lines I do not think that he can resist the amendment, which simply provides means for meeting an ordinary case that is bound to arise.

I am going to make an appeal to Deputies to consider the effect of the rejection of this amendment. They have already decided that the disease from which a person dies must be due solely to his service. If a man got disease through service but did not die of it, if he got wounded in service but did not die of the wound, and if it took the combination of wound and disease to bring about his death, you would be depriving his dependents of a gratuity, allowance, or pension. A disease must be solely attributable, or death must be solely attributable, to wounds, but if a man got disease through service and also a wound through service, and the combination brought about his death, you are going to refuse the dependents any gratuity, allowance or pension.

Anything that could be said in favour of this amendment was said under the previous section. Since we have thrashed the matter out I do not think that we could accept this amendment. A wound is a clear-cut thing and is not like disease. You can see it, and know whether death was due to a wound. If death is due to a wound, it is clear that the dependents must get gratuities or allowances in certain cases.

Mr. MURPHY

Will the Minister deny the fact that in the operations of this Bill, or in any other Bill which provides for Army pensions, he will not meet a number of cases in which people will be brought to a certain state of health, or rather ill-health, and will die as a result of wounds? Men who receive wounds during hostilities very often become subject to disease as a result of their condition of health consequent on such wounds. If the Minister wants to make provision for such men he cannot resist my amendment. Such a type of case will arise every day. If the Minister wants the Bill to apply to as few men as possible he ought to be honest and say so, and not try to get out of it in this fashion.

If the Deputy turns to Section 23 he will find that it covers the case. If a man suffers, partly from a wound and partly from disease, and if both taken together make 80% disability he will get a pension.

This deals with dependents of men who are already dead.

I voted against the last amendment, but I think there is something to be said in favour of this amendment. The number of cases it would affect would be very small. There is very little point in having in the word "solely." If the position is that a man dies from such a wound I think there is a very strong case made for an allowance.

Would the Minister say whether there is any amendment on the Paper he is going to accept if put forward by Deputies? When Deputies have made a good case in support of an amendment and the division bell rings the Minister can bring 40 or 50 Deputies to vote down the amendment without giving any consideration to the case made. So far as we have gone, has it not been a waste of time in bringing forward amendments, as the Minister in every case refuses to give way or consider them?

There is scarcely a member of the Dáil who is not painfully aware of the necessity for this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment, as I think it is a matter on which some concession should be made. It would be regrettable if men who are most afflicted are to be left out of benefit under the Bill merely because of some technical point. I strongly support the amendment.

I do not think the remarks of Deputy Byrne were called for on this occasion, because, as far as I am personally concerned, and as far as every member of the Government is concerned, consideration has been given to every amendment brought up, and if one deserves acceptance it is generally accepted.

Deputy Byrne made the charge that there is no use in private members bringing forward amendments as they would not be accepted. I have accepted amendments, and I have introduced amendments myself in the vital part of the Bill. I do not think that the castigation from Deputy Byrne was deserved. I am willing in this case to consider a combination of disease and wounds and, if possible, to bring in an amendment that will take in both—say a case where a man might have a disability of 20 per cent. from wounds and 50 or 60 per cent. from disease—so as to make up the minimum of 80 per cent. disability. I will try to have a clause drafted to meet that.

Will the Minister not consider the cases of widows and children—the dependents of a person who died from a combination of disease and wounds?

Amendment withdrawn.
Amendments 42 to 52, inclusive, on the Order Paper, not moved.

I move:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) Every allowance granted under this section to the widow or a child or dependent of a person who died or was killed before the 1st day of April, 1926 shall commence on that date and every allowance granted under this section to the widow or a child or dependent of a person who dies or is killed on or after the 1st day of April, 1926 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), shall commence on the day after the day on which such person so dies or is killed."

That empowers us to pay from the 1st April, 1926, and it meets to a great extent Deputy Nagle's amendment (No. 53). It certainly is in favour of the applicant, and it is one that in all the circumstances of the case should be accepted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On behalf of Deputy Nagle I will not move amendment 53 because the Minister goes a considerable distance to meet it.

Question—"That Section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move:—

Before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—

"Whenever an allowance is granted under this Act to or for the benefit of a person and such allowance commences on a date prior to the passing of this Act and an ex gratia allowance has prior to the passing of this Act been paid by the Minister to or for the benefit of such person, all payments made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) on foot of such ex gratia allowance shall, in so far as they were or are made in respect of a period subsequent to the date of the commencement of the said allowance granted under this Act, be deemed to have been made on account of the last-mentioned allowance and shall be accounted for accordingly."

This provides that an allowance and a gratuity cannot be drawn at the same time. We want to make that quitear. If there is any difference in the amounts the applicant will get the benefit, and that will be taken into consideration when he is being paid.

New Section put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 16 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 17. (1) and (3).
(1) Every application by a person who claims to have been a member of the Irish Volunteers or Irish Citizen Army for the grant of a wound pension or gratuity under the Principal Act as amended by this Act or further granted a pension under this Act shall be made within twelve months from the passing of this Act.
(3) Every application by a person discharged from the forces (whether before or after the passing of this Act) for the grant of a disability pension under this Act shall be made within four years after the date of such discharge.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 10, line 52, after the word "Army" to insert the words "and did not serve in the forces."

That is to provide that every application by a person who claims to have been a member of the Irish Volunteers or of the Irish Citizen Army for a gratuity or pension shall be made within twelve months. It brings these people up to the same level as if they had served in the Army, and gives them the period set out, nearly four years, and it allows them one year after the passing of this Act to apply for a pension or gratuity.

I would like, if possible, to get an assurance from the Minister in relation to Section 17 that he will see that adequate provision is made for the advertising of this time limit immediately after the Act is passed. A great deal of confusion arises sometimes owing to the fact that advertisements are not published sufficiently widely to enable everybody to comply with the limits that are laid down. Consequently grievances come in afterwards and it is impossible to remedy them. I ask the Minister to have this advertised so that everyone can take advantage of it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In sub-section (3), page 11, lines 3 and 4, to delete all from the word "within" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "before whichever of the following dates is the later, that is to say, the expiration of four years from the date of such discharge or the expiration of twelve months from the passing of this Act."

This amendment gives twelve months after the passing of the Bill for people to apply. Probably Deputy McGoldrick's point comes in here, and we will see that proper notice is given of the dates set out in the Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 put and agreed to.
SECTION 24. (6).
(6) The Minister may, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, defray out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas the funeral expenses of any person to whom this section applies who dies in any hospital, nursing home, or other like institution while detained therein by direction of the Minister for the purpose of undergoing any medical examination or treatment or surgical operation.

I move:—

In sub-section (6), page 13, line 50, immediately after the word "Finance" to insert the words "and in accordance with regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Minister for Finance."

That is, the consent of the Minister for Finance must be got for any regulations that are made. Of course, these regulations must be laid on the Table of the House within the statutory period.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
The Minister may provide for the payment of all or any pensions or allowances granted (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under the Principal Act or granted under that Act as amended by this Act or under this Act monthly in advance.

I do not propose to move this section. If it is agreed that it shall not be moved now it would save us the trouble of having it brought up on Report, and I would ask the House to allow me to finish with it now. The words "monthly in advance" slipped in there somehow or other. We do not purpose paying pensions in advance. If we did the State might be let in for something. It would be very hard to get the money back if a pensioner died on the 10th of the month, or at any time previous to that. In that case he would have been paid for the full month in advance, and if the State were to try to recoup itself it might be difficult in a great many cases to get the money back, because it might have been already spent.

Is the objection to the words "in advance," or to paying monthly?

"In advance."

What provisions are there as to how these pensions shall be paid? Are they to be monthly, quarterly or half-yearly?

Monthly.

Is that provided for anywhere? Will the Minister be prepared to delete the words "in advance" and leave in the word "monthly"?

That will suit my point. I will allow it to stand and have it remedied on Report.

Sections 25, 26 and 27 put and agreed to.
SECTION 28.
This Act may be cited as the Army Pensions Act, 1926, and the Principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Army Pensions Act, 1923 and 1926.

I move:—

On page 14, in line 24, and also in line 26, to delete the figures "1926" and substitute in each case the figures "1927."

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Amendments of the Principal Act.
Section 4. —By the insertion at the end of the section of a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) Any wound pension granted to a person who was wounded while performing his duty as a member of the Irish Volunteers on or after the 1st day of April, 1922, shall commence on the date on which such person was wounded unless such person became a member of the forces before or immediately after he ceased to be a member of the Irish Volunteers in which case the pension shall commence from the date of his discharge from the forces."
Section 5, sub-section (1). —By the deletion of the sub-section and the insertion in lieu thereof of a new sub-section, as follows:—
"(1) The Minister may from time to time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, supply to any person to whom a wound pension (whether temporary or permanent) or a gratuity has been granted under this Act such surgical and medical appliances as his case may require, and provided for the repair or renewal of any such appliances."
Section 5, sub-section (2).—By the deletion of the words "officer or soldier" wherever those words occur and the insertion in lieu thereof of the word "person."
Section 8, sub-section (1).—(a) By the deletion of the words "before the 1st day of April, 1922" where those words and figures firstly and secondly occur and the insertion in lieu thereof in each case of the words "while serving in the Irish Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army";
(b) By the insertion of the words and figures "and before the 1st day of October, 1923" after the figures "1922" where those figures thirdly occur.
Section 8, sub-section (2).—By the deletion of the sub-section and the insertion in lieu thereof of a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Every allowance granted under this section shall commence on the 1st day of April, 1922, or the date of the death of the person in respect of whom the same is payable, whichever of those dates is the later."

First Schedule

By the deletion of the words and figures:—

Loss of all toes, both feet

20

40

8/4

3

2

And the insertion in lieu thereof of the words and figures:—

Loss of all toes, both feet

30

60

12/7

4/6

3

I move:—

On page 15, before the reference to and amendment of Section 4 to insert a new amendment as follows:—

"Section 4, sub-section (3). By the deletion of all words from the words ‘unless such person became to the end of the sub-section and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words ‘but if such person became a member of the forces such pension shall not be payable for or in respect of the period during which he was or shall be a member of the forces.'"

This provides that a man is not to be paid a pension while he is serving in the forces.

Perhaps the Minister would throw a little more light on this. That is not a very informative explanation of the intention. If he tells us exactly what it means we would be able to follow it more clearly. This is a reference to the original Act, and I think the Minister should tell us what the original Act provides, and then what the amendment is aimed at.

This is an amendment to Section 4, sub-section (3) of the Act of 1923. That Act provides that a pension may be paid from 1st April, 1922, to the date of joining the forces. This sub-section makes it quitear that if a man who is a pensioner under the Act of 1923 joins the forces and is being paid as a member of the forces, he cannot draw the pension while he is serving. I think that that is a legitimate amendment, and an amendment that nobody can cavil at.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 59 not moved.

I move:—

On page 15, in the amendment of Section 4, to delete in the new sub-section (4) in the second column all words from "unless such person became" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "but if such person became a member of the forces such pension shall not be payable for or in respect of the period during which he was or shall be a member of the forces."

That is practically on all fours with the other amendment, and it provides that a man cannot get both pension and pay at the same time.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

On page 15, in the amendment of Section 5, sub-section (1), to delete in the new sub-section in the second column the word "provided" and substitute the word "provide."

This is merely a verbal amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

On page 16, immediately before the reference to and amendment of Section 8, sub-section (1), to insert a new amendment as follows:—

"Section 7, sub-section (1). By the deletion in paragraph (b) of the words ‘three years' and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words ‘four years.'"

This simply increases the period under the old Act to four years. It is in favour of the applicant for a pension, and I think it should commend itself. It gives the applicant an additional year to reach the minimum for disablement.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

On page 16, immediately before the reference to and amendment of Section 8, sub-section (2), to insert a new amendment as follows:—

"Section 8, sub-section (1).—By the deletion of the words ‘within three years' and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words ‘within four years.'"

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

At the end of page 16 to insert a new amendment as follows:—

"Section 13, sub-section (2).—By the insertion of the words ‘or any compensation awarded by the Minister for Finance on the recommendation of the Personal Injuries Committee' after the words ‘officer or soldier' where those words firstly occur."

That means that if a person went before the Personal Injuries Commission and got an award through a mistake, the money can be recouped out of the pension, in order that he may not be paid twice for the one thing.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the First Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Second Schedule put and agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Scale of disability pensions, wound pensions, and married pensions for persons discharged from the forces on or after the 1st day of October, 1924.
PART I.
OFFICERS.

Degree of Disablement

SCALE OF PENSION

100 per cent.

60 per cent. of annual pay at the date of discharge.

90 ,,,,

54 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

80 ,,,,

48 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

70 ,,,,

42 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

60 ,,,,

36 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

50 ,,,,

30 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

40 ,,,,

24 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

30 ,,,,

18 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

20 ,,,,

12 ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,,

The married pension payable to an officer in receipt of a pension under this Schedule who is entitled to a married pension shall be at the rate of £20 per annum.
PART II.
SOLDIERS.

RANK AT DISCHARGE FROM FORCES

RATES OF PENSION PER WEEK, ACCORDING TO DEGREE OF DISABLEMENT

100%

90%

80%

70%-80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

Private

20/–

18/–

16/–

14/–—16/–

14/–

12/–

10/–

8/–

6/–

4/–

Corporal

24/6

22/–

19/7

17/1—19/7

17/1

14/8

12/3

9/9

7/4

4/10

Sergeant

28/–

25/2

23/4

19/7—23/4

19/7

16/9

14/–

11/2

8/4

5/7

Co. Q.M. Sergt.

30/–

27/–

24/–

21/—–24/–

21/–

18/–

15/–

12/–

9/–

6/–

Co. Sergeant

31/6

28/4

25/2

22/—–25/2

22/–

18/10

15/9

12/7

9/5

6/3

Batt. Q.M. Sgt.

33/6

30/1

26/9

23/5—26/9

23/5

20/1

16/9

13/4

10/–

6/8

Sergeant Major

37/–

33/3

29/7

25/10—29/7

25/10

22/2

18/6

14/9

11/1

7/4

For the purposes of the above scale a soldier (other than a private) who at the date of his discharge from the forces has held his rank for a period of less than six months prior to such discharge shall be deemed to have held at such discharge the rank below the rank then actually held by him.

The married pension payable to a soldier in receipt of a pension under this Schedule who is entitled to a married pension shall be at the rate of five shillings a week.

The following amendment appeared on the Paper:—
In Part I., on page 17, to insert immediately below the scale the words:—"Note —‘Annual pay' does not include allowances, or additional pay in respect of temporary, probationary or acting duty."

I do not propose to move this amendment. I want to go into it and give some further consideration to the drafting of it.

Amendment not moved.

I move:—

In Part II., page 17, to delete the scale of pensions and substitute a new scale as follows:—

PART II.

SOLDIERS.

RANK at Discharge from Forces

Rates of Pension per week according to degree of disablement

Group

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

Private

I

26

0

23

5

20

10

18

2

15

7

13

0

10

5

7

10

5

2

Corporal

II

30

0

27

0

24

0

18

0

18

0

15

0

12

0

9

0

6

0

Sergeant

III

34

0

30

7

27

2

23

10

20

5

17

0

13

7

10

2

6

10

Co. Q.M. Sergeant

Company Sergeant

IV

38

0

34

2

30

5

26

7

22

10

19

0

15

2

11

5

7

7

Batt. Q.M. Sergeant

Sergeant-Major

V

42

0

37

9

33

7

29

4

25

2

21

0

16

9

12

7

8

4

There was a good deal of comment on the Second Reading of the Bill on the Schedule as it stood, and as a consequence I brought in this amendment. It sets out the non-commissioned officers and men under five heads, and we have considerably augmented the money values per week in all these cases. In the first instance we had the 100 per cent. pension at 20/- but we now make it 26/-. There is a graduated scale for the various ranks up to 42/- per week. Deputy Johnson and several other Deputies stressed this matter very much on the Second Reading debate and this concession has been made. I think it is right.

I would like to have it made clear that the scale as printed is not inclusive and that the last paragraph of the original scale regarding a marriage pension to the soldier still remains. That states that the married pension shall be at the rate of 5/- per week. The Bill as printed contains columnar statements of figures and has two paragraphs. The amendment, apparently, only deals with the table, but it may be taken, unless it is madear, to be the whole of Part II. of the Schedule and that the reference in the paragraph on page 18 of the Bill is deleted. I take it that still remains?

Amendment put and agreed to.

On behalf of Deputy Nagle I move:—

In Part II. to delete the five lines immediately below the table.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Third Schedule as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
Scale of Degrees of Disability to Wounds.

Degree of Disablement

Specific Injury

Proportion corresponding to degree of Disablement

Per cent.

1

Loss of two or more limbs

100

Loss of both hands or of all fingers and thumbs

,,

Total loss of sight

,,

Wounds, injuries, or results of them, resulting in a disabled man

,,

being totally bedridden

,,

Wounds of or injuries to internal, thoracic or abdominal organs

,,

involving total permanent disablement

,,

Total organic paralysis resulting from wounds or injuries to brain or spinal cord

,,

2

Loss of an arm and one eye

90

Loss of a leg and one eye

,,

Loss of a hand and a foot

,,

Loss of one arm through shoulder

,,

3

Loss of both feet

80

Amputation of leg at hip or below hip, with stump not exceeding five inches in length, measured from tip of great trochanter; of right arm below shoulder, with stump not exceeding six inches, measured from tip of acromion; or of left arm through shoulder

4

Lisfranc operation both feet

70–80

5

Amputation of leg below hip, with stump exceeding five inches in length, measured from tip of great trochanter, but not below middle thigh; of left arm below shoulder with stump not exceeding six inches, measured from tip of acromion, or of right arm below shoulder, with stump, exceeding six inches, measured from tip of acromion, through elbow, or below elbow, with stump not exceeding five inches, measured from tip of olecranon

70

6

Amputation of leg below middle thigh, through knee, or below knee, with stump not exceeding four inches; of left arm below shoulder, with stump exceeding six inches, measured from tip of acromion, through elbow, or below elbow, with stump not exceeding five inches, measured from tip of olecranon; or of right arm below elbow, with stump exceeding five inches, measured from tip of olecranon

60

7

Amputation of leg below knee, with stump exceeding four inches, or of left arm below elbow, with stump exceeding five inches, measured from tip of olecranon

50

8

Loss of one eye, the result of G.S.W. or injury

40

Loss of thumb or of four fingers of right hand

40

Loss of thumb or of four fingers of left hand, or three fingers of right hand

30

Lisfranc operation, one foot

30

Loss of all toes, both feet

30

Loss of two fingers, either hand

20

Loss of all toes of one foot

20

NOTE. —In the case of left-handed men, certified to be such, the compensation in respect of the left arm, hand, etc., will be the same as for a right arm, hand, etc., and vice versa.

I beg to move:—

On page 18 to delete the first column, including the headings "Degree of Disablement."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

On page 18, in the heading to the third column, to delete the words "Proportion corresponding to."

I take it that the effect of these two amendments is that the Schedule will contain only two columns?

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

On page 18, to delete the words and figures—

4

Lisfranc operation to both feet

70-80

The draftsman thinks that it is a bad thing to put the figures "70-80" in the Schedule. It is provided that the nearest figure, whether 70 or 80 or whatever it is in the Schedule, will be applied to any disablement of that kind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

On page 18, opposite the specific injury in the second column commencing "amputation of leg below hip," to insert in the third column the figure "70."

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Fourth Schedule as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Dependents to or amongst whom Gratuities may be granted.
PART I.
OFFICERS.
1. Widow.
2. Sons under the age of 18 and daughters under the age of 21.
3. (a) Mother.
(b) Father over the age of 60 or permanently incapacitated by illhealth.
(c) Brothers and sisters permanently incapacitated by ill-health.
(d) Grand-parents.
4. Brothers under the age of 18 and sisters under the age of 21.
PART II.
SOLDIERS.
1. Widow.
2. Sons under the age of 16 and daughters under the age of 18.
3. (a) Mother.
(b) Father.
(c) Brothers and sisters permanently incapacitated by illhealth.
(d) Grand-parents.
4. Brothers under the age of 16 and sisters under the age of 18.

I move:—

On page 19, in Part II., item 3 (c), after the word "Father," to add the words "over the age of 60 or permanently incapacitated by ill-health."

The Schedule as it stands does not state what the age is to be, on whether the degree of incapacity is to be stated. This amendment is to bring it into line with the provisions dealing with officers in Part I. of the Schedule.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Fifth Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sixth Schedule put and agreed to.
SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
PART I. —OFFICERS.
1. Widow of second lieutenant, lieutenant or captain, £60 per annum during widowhood; widow of major or commandant, £90 per annum during widowhood; widow of colonel or higher rank, £120 per annum during widowhood.
2. Widow of officer (any rank), £120 gratuity on first re-marriage.
3. Children under the age of 18— (a) While mother is living, £16 per annum for each child, but not exceeding a total of £64 per annum for children of any one officer; (b) After death of mother £35 per annum for each child.
4. Children over the age of 11 and under the age of 18—Repayment of amount proved to have been in fact necessarily and properly expended in educational fees, but not exceeding £30 in any one calendar year in respect of any one child. This allowance is additional to the allowance stated at No. 3.
The following amendment stood in the name of The Minister:—
In Part I., page 21, item number 3, clause (b), to delete the figures 35 and substitute the figures 25.

I do not propose to move this amendment. There was some confusion with regard to these two figures, neither being correct. If the Committee gives me leave I propose to alter the figures "25" and "35" to "30." That change will bring the matter into balance with the remainder of the section. If the Committee is not agreeable to allow the change to be made now, then I shall move to have it made on the Report Stage. I think myself that "30" is the proper figure. It is a little bit in favour of the applicant, but if the Committee is agreeable I am prepared to accept the figure "30."

While I have no objection myself, I think the Minister would be well advised to defer this until the Report Stage. The Minister may remember that Deputy Mulcahy raised some questions on the Schedule, and if he had notice of this he might like to be present.

Very well, I have no objection to leaving it over for the Report Stage.

Amendment not moved.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.

There is just one point that I would suggest to the Minister he should take into account. In the case of the indices, something, I think, should be done to make them really valuable in indicating what particular section is referred to. The matter is of importance to future readers of the Bill. There is, for instance, a reference to "disability pensions in certain cases under Section 10," and then there is a reference to "disability pensions in certain other cases," but this last reference points to nothing. I think it would be quite a simple matter to indicate in the marginal notes what the sections refer to.

The references will, I think, be quite a simple proposition to lawyers, but in any case I will look into the matter.

The lawyer wants to look at the text proper, but the average man would like to know where he is to look when he wants to put in a claim for a pension, and I think that there should be some simplification of the index.

I would ask the Minister to clarify the position so far as women are concerned in applications for disability or disablement pensions. Do I understand the position to be that a woman will not be entitled to a disability or a disablement pension unless she was attached to the Irish Volunteers. Will people who were in auxiliary forces at that time be entitled to the benefits under this Bill when it becomes an Act?

If a woman is qualified the same as a man and that she has given service, I think the Deputy need have no fear but that she will get a pension.

Do I take it that she must have been in the Irish Volunteers before she will get a pension?

Or any of the other forces mentioned in the Bill.

Ordered: That the Report Stage of the Bill be taken on 8th March.
Barr
Roinn