BILLS FROM THE SEANAD. - ARMY PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL, 1927—FOURTH STAGE.
Amendment 1.—In page 2, Section 1, line 28, to delete the word "eighty" and substitute therefor the word "thirty"—(Deputy Tomás de Nogla)—not moved.
I desire to move the following amendment:—
In page 2, Section 1, line 28, to delete the word "eighty" and substitute therefor the word "fifty."
On the Committee Stage of this Bill I moved an amendment to substitute the word "twenty" for the word "eighty." The effect of this amendment is to reduce the percentage of the degree of disablement due to illness. As the Bill stands, a person would want to be eighty per cent. disabled as a result of disease contracted during service before he would be entitled to any pension. The minimum percentage of disablement in respect of wounds is only twenty per cent. Now, the Minister refused to accept the amendment which I moved on the Committee Stage.
I do not think that the Minister was able to meet the case put up for the amendment. A man who would be 80 per cent. disabled would, I submit, be almost a dead man—he would, at all events, be eight-tenths dead—and that any deliberative assembly would put into an Act that the minimum of disablement should be 80 per cent. is something unthinkable. It was suggested to me that there was too great a gap between what was in the Bill and what was in my amendment during the Committee Stage, namely, that between 80 per cent. and 20 per cent., and, in order to give the Dáil an opportunity of doing something fair in the matter, I have put down this amendment. I submit that it is a very fair one. I am not at all satisfied that 20 per cent. disablement due to disease is not even a more serious matter for the man who is trying to get employment than 20 per cent. disablement due to a wound.
A wound is a definite thing, and you know how it has affected a man and how it is likely to affect him. Disease, however, is a different matter. A man may be fairly well to-day but may be very bad to-morrow. It would be more difficult, I submit, for a man who has been disabled, to any extent you like, by disease contracted during service to get work and retain it than it would be for a man similarly disabled by a wound. I have not heard the Minister make any case as to why there should be such a great difference between the disability percentage for wounds and that for disease. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment; if he does not, I hope the Dáil will have something to say on the matter. If the Minister insists on the word "eighty" remaining in the Bill he might as well wipe the Bill out altogether because, unless a man can prove to the satisfaction of the court to be set up under the Act that he is disabled to the extent of 50 per cent as a result of disease actually contracted on service, his case will not be considered. It seems to me that a man who gave service to his country, who contracted disease while on such service, and who, as a result, is 50 per cent. disabled, is entitled to some consideration from the Dáil.
I support the amendment. During the Committee Stage of the Bill the Minister was half in agreement with those Deputies who asked to have the disablement percentage reduced from 80 per cent. If a member of the I.R.A. in 1916 joined the National Army in 1922 and contracted tuberculosis, or some other disease, and if his earning capacity is reduced by 50 per cent., he is not capable of earning a wage sufficient to maintain himself and his family. According to this section, if the 80 per cent. is allowed to remain, he would not be entitled to get any assistance, notwithstanding the fact that he acquired disease through service to the State. It will be very hard on a soldier to prove that he did actually contract disease while on service. Considering the number of men who will get pensions under this Bill it would not be worth while for the Minister to reject the amendment. If a man loses an arm or a leg he is not entitled to anything. If he fell off a lorry, and as a result of the accident one of his legs had to be removed, he would not be entitled to anything, notwithstanding the fact that his whole earning capacity is gone.
If a man contracted disease through hardships while suffering as a member of the Volunteers or of the National Army he would have to go to a great deal of trouble to prove that he contracted disease while on service. Even if 70 per cent. of his capacity is gone he would not be entitled to one penny under the Act. That is very hard treatment to give to men who served their country. If this Act is allowed to remain as it is, it will deprive them of their rights to a pension. If a man loses 80 per cent. of his capacity, what use is the remaining 20 per cent. to him? What is he able to do for himself or his family? If he lost an arm or a leg or if one of his lungs is affected he is really useless as a wage-earner.
It has been proved by medical men that a man with one lung might live for years, but on the other hand, he might drop off at any time. Nevertheless, such a man would get nothing under this Bill. Surely the Minister will see that some little justice is done to men who answered the call of their country. I would have preferred to support Deputy Nagle's amendment if he moved it, as I think that even 50 per cent. disablement is too high. I believe it should be 20 per cent. If a man is disabled to the extent of 20 or 30 per cent. he will get no compensation, but will have to be an incumbrance on the rates or the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Will the Government, or any member of the Government Party, take into their service a man who is 70 per cent disabled and pay him £2 10s. a week? Given the choice of two men who would they take—the man who is fit physically and able to do his work, or a man who is really unable to work owing to losing 70 per cent. of his capacity? I know it is the intention of the Minister and of the Government to try and do what they can to give gratuities or pensions to men who have sacrificed a great deal in order that this Government might function, and I ask the Minister, in the interests of justice, to accept the amendment and to fix the extent of disablement at 50 per cent.
The arguments that were used in regard to this question on the Committee Stage could again be used now. The question as to whether the percentage of disablement should be 50 or 80 could be argued for a long time. Deputy Morrissey laid great stress on the case of the man who got a gratuity with 20 per cent. disablement due to a wound. There is a great difference between disablement due to wounds and disablement due to disease. You know how a man got the wound and you know that the wound is there, and what disablement is attached to it, but in the case of disease—we are now only dealing with cases of disease—it is impossible to say how a man contracted it. If it could be proved beyond doubt that a man was healthy when he joined either the Volunteers or the National Army it might be easy to adjust matters, but no one at this stage can say whether or not he was, and in framing this Bill it was never intended that every case should be dealt with. It was intended that cases of hardship would be brought in, and it is the opinion of my advisers and myself that 80 per cent. disablement is a fair minimum to set down.
If you put down 50 per cent., 40 per cent., or any other percentage, the same argument would apply—why not make it 10 or 20 per cent. less. Deputy Lyons said that if Deputy Nagle had moved his 30 per cent. amendment he would rather support it than the one moved by Deputy Morrissey. Be that as it may, you have the Bill as it stands. This is not a case of where you have a wound, where you know what happened, and what the actual disability was. Here is a case of disease, and we are catering only for cases where hardship exists and are not catering for everyone who has suffered some inconvenience by his activities. We have to take the taxpayers into account. We anticipate, as I said on previous stages of the Bill, that a great number of cases, probably 20,000, will come up for consideration, and if these were to be dealt with on the basis set out in the amendment, it would not be possible to calculate what the result would be to the country. Taking everything into account, I think the minimum in the Bill is a reasonable one, and I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister tells us we have the Bill as it stands—we have a well-considered, carefully-drafted, elaborately-thought-out piece of legislation, and yet out of 24 amendments on the Report Stage 21 stand in the name of the Minister for Defence. We have not the Bill as it stands. We have the Bill as the Minister is going to alter it. It is indisputable that a man with 50 per cent. disability can work only three days a week instead of six. That is the basis on which disability is fixed. Is not a man with 50 per cent. disability entitled to some compensation? I know there are difficulties in fixing a disability percentage, but these difficulties have been overcome in other places. If the disability percentage is fixed at 80 per cent it means that only a hopeless cripple can hope to benefit under this Bill. A man may be laid up with rheumatism or tuberculosis, not bad enough to be sent to a sanatorium and not able to do any work, and he could not hope to get any benefit from this Bill. The amendment is a reasonable one and will meet many cases of serious hardship—possibly 500 cases—and it is one which I think ought to be accepted.
The Minister takes up the same attitude he took up on the Committee Stage. He says: "This is the Bill agreed on, and this is the minimum percentage of disability we agreed on," and from that position he is not prepared to move. He put up no real arguments on previous occasions or to-day in support of his attitude. The Minister made one point that has the semblance of an argument but yet which does not bear examination. He said that there was a difference between a wound and a case of disease, that in the case of a wound we know how it happened and that there was no doubt about it. Now is it not the case that before a pension is granted under this Bill it must be proved absolutely and conclusively that the disease was contracted in the course of service? If that is not proved then there is no case for a pension, and the onus of proof is on the claimant. It cannot be taken as an argument in opposition to the amendment that doubt exists as to how the sickness occurred. There is no room for doubt in the provisions of the Bill. It must be proved definitely that the disease was contracted while on military service. The Minister spoke about the effort the Government has made to meet cases of hardship. Does he contend that a man who is 50 per cent. disabled is not an instance of very great hardship if his earning capacity is reduced to that extent? He is not in a position to support himself properly, and medical expenses would be a big drag on whatever he would be able to earn, and that would be very little.
What, in effect, the Minister says is that what is proposed would be too much of a load to put on the country. Has he calculated what it would be? He talks of 20,000 applicants. There may be that number, but there will not be 20,000 entitled to pensions, even if they were granted on the basis of Deputy Morrissey's amendment, which is a reasonable one. If Deputy Nagle was here to move his amendment I would support it and vote for it, but I did not take the responsibility of moving it on his behalf in his absence, as I prefer to stand with Deputy Morrissey on this amendment, which, if anything, fixes the disability of percentage too high. The country has carried greater burdens than would be occasioned by accepting Deputy Morrissey's amendment. Many people have got pensions who are not as well entitled to them as the men for whom we plead here. We think it would be a lasting disgrace to the State to pass this Bill, and that it would be far decenter to withdraw it rather than be giving many people the idea that they were going to get pensions and then to find out that they would only get them not merely if they had one foot in the grave but unless they were up to their neck in the grave. I hope the Minister will change his mind and accept the amendment; if not, we will press the matter to a division, and we will see then what the opinion of the Deputies is regarding such a reasonable proposal.
An amendment such as this would have been more likely to get a very different reception had it been to the Bill that was introduced in 1923, but we are now in 1927.
But the fact of the matter is that during that time the condition of the men may not have improved, and it was not a State liability. If a man had 20 per cent. disability four years ago I expect that more than likely that would be 80 per cent. disability to-day. That is the case we are endeavouring to meet. This sort of amendment has a sentimental attraction. This is the sort of amendment that one could deal with at great length on election platforms or elsewhere, but we are four years away——
And the Government itself is responsible for the delay.
How long did you keep back this Bill? You were promising it for two and a half years.
That sort of contribution to the debate will not get us any nearer to a solution.
It is the truth. Deal with it on its merits.
It is a fact that we are four years from the date when most of these disabilities were incurred, and it is no contribution to the debate to say that young men are walking around with pensions. If they are walking around with pensions they gave service to the State, a considerable portion of it at no remuneration whatever, when other citizens were employed in remunerative undertakings and their lives safe. Under this measure a man with six months service in the Army will be entitled, if he has an eighty per cent. disability now, to a pension, and, as I said before, a twenty per cent. disability four years ago would, in the majority of cases, be an eighty per cent. disability now. The real period of active service began in July, 1922, and to all intents and purposes it ended twelve months later. In many cases men gave six months service at that time. Some of them may not have been on active service at all. I will admit that they bore arms; I will admit that it is possible they contracted a great many diseases, but there are other walks in life in which it is also possible to contract diseases, and if Deputies opposite had men in their service who contracted rheumatism, or something of that sort, they might not be so anxious to give them pensions. We happen to be at the moment the custodians of the taxpayers' money in this and other matters.
Is the President not aware that it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disease was contracted on and was due solely to service?
I intended to come to that point. I know that while that provision is in, a very large percentage of cases will be paid for under this Bill for disablement which was not incurred solely during active service.
Is that a reason why the genuine cases should not be paid for?
We are going to deal with the genuine cases. Every person who has a genuine case will get genuine consideration, and will get generous consideration. One of the problems which we have had to consider in connection with this matter was the large number of applications, and we found that it would take practically two years for the medical officers in the Army—and there is a fairly large number of them—to examine those cases and to report on them. By reason of an eighty per cent. disability the cases of the utmost hardship will be reached much more quickly.
If that was the object why not make it ninety per cent.? You would then reach them still more quickly.
I do not think there is any difference between eighty per cent. and ninety per cent. in a matter of that sort, nor do I think there would be any difference between forty per cent. and fifty per cent., if fifty per cent. were passed.
Or between fifty per cent. and eighty per cent.
There would be a difference between fifty per cent. and eighty per cent. I notice that while there is a great deal of support for fifty per cent. nobody told us what it was. Deputy Cooper was the only one who attempted to do so, and he gave us a sort of lame explanation—a man who could work only three days in the week. I have a fairly varied experience of men, but I have not come across a man who was able to do only three days work in the week. If he was able to do three he would probably be able to do four.
Would the President employ a man who was fifty per cent. disabled in preference to a man who was a hundred per cent. fit?
I do not conduct a medical examination, or have one conducted, in respect of any man I employ, and I do not think people usually do. But I have come across cases of men who, within a month of their deaths from disease, were working a full week, men who worked up to the very last. I am putting to Deputies on the other side the difficulty of deciding what is a fifty per cent. disability. You do not get a three days a week example, and an eighty per cent. disability is really a case in which a man is unable to work. That was all that was intended when this clause was put into the Bill. We do not believe that it would be possible to administer the measure and give most generous consideration to all the cases by putting in any other percentage.
It means funeral expenses.
The President has accused me of making a lame explanation. I will now try to mend my gait and amplify my definition, which was a very rough definition, I admit. A fifty per cent. disability means that a man's earning capacity has been reduced by half. Possibly he may work only three days a week. More probably he can only work a fortnight in the month, because of some recurrent disease, malaria, or some such thing, or even more probably, owing to the fact that he is partly disabled by disease, his power of doing work is such that his employer can only put him on to light work and cannot pay him the same wages he would be capable of earning if he was in full enjoyment of his health. That is the full definition. Now, when the President said that the amendment might have been accepted four years ago—and it was not Deputy Morrissey's fault that the amendment was not accepted four years ago—but that now all these cases have been so aggravated by the passage of time that it is impossible to deal with them on that basis, he is flying in the face of all the pensions experience of the British Army.
We are now on the Report Stage of the Bill, and I can only allow the Deputy to make an explanation of the definition that he gave.
I would not intervene in this discussion were it not for the remark that the President dropped, to the effect that this amendment was inspired for electioneering purposes.
I thought that was a reasonable interpretation of the President's remark.
Certainly not. I said that the amendment was one that had a certain sentimental attraction, and that a good deal of use could be made of it on election platforms, but certainly not that it was for electioneering purposes.
I think Deputy Morrissey has answered the President's point, if there was anything in it, when he said that if this amendment was introduced two and a half years ago he would not be open to a charge of this kind. The President taunts Deputies on this side of the House and asks for a definition of fifty per cent. in their amendment. Would the President or the Minister in charge of the Bill give some definition of what is meant by eighty per cent.?
I have stated: "A man who was so disabled as to be unable to earn any money."
The President told us of his own experience in regard to employment. I do not know whether it refers to large numbers of people or not, but if the President will for his own information ask for a return of the sickness list of any firm which employs any appreciable number of ex-National Army men, he might be surprised to see the extent they absent themselves from duty owing to sickness contracted during service in the National Army. I have seen returns which have to be made out in regard to men who are employed by railway companies and who served in the British Army. They have to be made out in the case of men who are drawing pensions from the British Army. The President would be amazed if he asked for a return from such a firm as, say, Guinness's or the railway company, to see the number of days and wages lost as a result of sickness, to some extent or perhaps solely, contracted while serving in the British or the National Army. I do not know what his experience is in regard to the number of men employed in the firms he has in mind. If he asks for a return from some reputable firm—there are many firms who have given a preference to ex-National Army men—he would probably have a better appreciation of the extent to which these people suffer from sickness contracted in the National or the British Army. Perhaps the Minister for Defence will at some greater length enlighten us regarding his definition of what is eighty per cent. disability. If he does not do it for the purpose of giving some enlightenment to Deputies, perhaps he will do it for the purpose of giving some guidance to the members of the Board who will be appointed to administer the Act.
The President stated that eighty per cent. disablement will reach very quickly cases of the utmost hardship. Is it only intended to deal with cases which might be considered of the utmost hardship, or can the President hold out any hope that he might introduce a Bill to deal with cases of ordinary hardship?
The President says "No." Surely it is not intended to keep out a man who could give proof of say 60 or 70 per cent. injury without any means of livelihood? I ask whether at any future date the Minister or the President can hold out any hope that the few cases that I brought to their notice—one where a man lost his leg and another where a man lost his foot through a pure accident—will be considered 80 per cent. cases? We were led to believe when this Bill was introduced that these cases would be considered.
That question does not arise on this amendment.
I ask your permission to make the point that the cases I have described would not be classed 80 per cent. disablement. If a man loses an arm or leg, that is not 80 per cent. under army regulations. I would ask the Minister favourably to consider the points I made in connection with one case in which an iron sheet fell on a man's foot. As a result his foot had to be taken off. Another case was a case in which a rifle went off by accident, and as a result a man lost his leg.
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but I submit this does not arise on the amendment.
It does not arise on the amendment at all.
I know it is a very fine point, but I am only referring to this point. I think these would not be considered 80 per cent. disablement under the existing regulations dealing with pensions. The fact that a man has lost a leg or an arm would not allow his case to be dealt with under the 80 per cent. qualification.
That would be covered by wounds pensions.
With regard to the point raised about the definition of 50 per cent. disablement, might I ask how the Minister proposes to define a 20 per cent. disablement in the case of a wound?
That is for the Medical Board. The Minister does not do it.
I know that, but it is just as easy to define it in the case of disease. It is an evasion of the whole responsibility.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies O'Connell and Morrissey; Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 3:—
In page 3, line 21, to add at the end of Section 4 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) In the case of those persons who signed the proclamation published on Easter Monday in the year 1916 in connection with the rising of April and May of that year and in respect of whom the Minister may give or shall have given certificates under Section 8 of the Principal Act, the Second Schedule to the Principal Act shall as from the passing of this Act apply and have effect as if the respective amounts of the several allowances and gratuities specified in that Schedule were double the amounts actually specified therein."
It is obvious what the amendment proposes to do. It only affects a small number of people, perhaps four or five altogether.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 4, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) Whenever the Minister shall consider the amount of pension, allowance, or gratuity reported by the Army Pensions Board to be excessive or wherever the applicant shall be dissatisfied with either the amount of pension allowance or gratuity reported or the degree of disability assessed an appeal shall lie to a Pensions Appeal Board established under this section, whose decision shall be final.
(2) The Pensions Appeal Board shall consist of a Chairman and four ordinary members, all of whom shall be appointed by the President of the Executive Council.
(3) The ordinary members of the Pensions Appeal Board shall be duly qualified medical practitioners.
(4) The Minister may with the consent of the Minister for Finance make rules regulating the functions and procedure of the Pensions Appeal Board.
(5) The powers given to the Army Pensions Board under sub-section. (7) of Section 5 of this Act shall likewise apply to the Pensions Appeal Board."
This amendment differs entirely from my previous amendment defeated on the Committee Stage. I say that to put myself in order. My previous amendment contemplated the establishment of an Army Pensions Appeal Tribunal to which the disappointed applicant could appeal. My present amendment contemplates the establishment of an Appeal Board to which either the Minister or the applicant can appeal. My previous arrangement was one-sided, but my present proposal is impartial, and is rendered all the more necessary because of an amendment which the Minister carried on the Committee Stage deleting the words that the decision of the ordinary Army Pensions Board should be final. I also had an amendment down to that effect, but mine was coupled with the establishment of an appeal tribunal. The Minister has abolished the finality of the decision of the Board, and at the same time has set up no form of appeal. In other words, the Minister will be able to overrule any decision of the Army Pensions Board. Its decisions will no longer be final, and presumably the Minister will be able to overrule them. The only remedy against the Minister would be an action in the law courts, and most of the applicants for pensions would not have the means to bring a lawsuit. The President, speaking on the last amendment, said that the Minister does not do that. In the Bill as it now comes before us the Minister can overrule the Board because he has removed the finality of decision from the Board. Accordingly, I suggest to the Minister and to the Dáil that it is absolutely necessary that there should be an appeal.
As regards the form of the Appeal Tribunal, I have followed Deputy Bolger and Deputy Martin Conlon in the amendments that they put down on the Committee Stage, and which were then held to have been disposed of. The Appeal Board will consist of a chairman and four medical members, all appointed by the President. I believe that the President would appoint a fair-minded Board, and I am quite sure that the fact that four members are medical men will ensure that their decisions are dictated by knowledge and impartiality. My proposed Appeal Board would have all the powers of the original Board. As this is the only chance I will have of putting the matter before the Minister, I shall try and place myself in the state of mind of the man who has been waiting for a pension for more than four years and then is deprived of it, as he thinks, on a technicality. That man is naturally resentful. He is not a very well educated man and is not familiar with the details of legislation. If a case comes before the Board and that the Board rejects the appeal and reduces the applicant's disability to lower than eighty per cent., or if the Minister refuses the decision of the Board, he will feel hurt and injured that he has no further course to take. I know very well what he will do. He will write to Deputies, probably to Deputy Byrne. The Deputy will have to tell him that the only thing that can be done is to put down a question.
I want to see something more valid and effectual than putting down questions, and I want to have some reasonable chance of revision in such cases. I am quite sure that the Board appointed by the Minister will do their best to secure fair play. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Minister, or anybody connected with the administration of the Act, will do anything to try to bias the Board or to influence the scales of justice, but the best of us make mistakes, and in the administration of an Act like this mistakes are bound to arise. The only conceivable means of correcting them is to provide for a reasonable court of appeal. The Minister's idea of a court of appeal is that provided in the Bill, but I want to take the appeal away from the administrative side on to the judicial side. I believe that the amendment which I propose will do so, and that it will create a court of appeal that will be satisfactory alike to the Minister and to the applicant.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. I agree with Deputy Cooper that if the President had the making of appointments, such as he suggests, he would certainly appoint people who would be above suspicion. The Deputy and the House must at the same time recognise that the machinery proposed for dealing with applicants who think they have grievances is such as will work well in the interests of applicants and the State. In the first instance, an applicant is examined by the Board. Naturally, he puts his case in the best way possible in order that he may get a pension. The case is fully thrashed out, and if the man is not satisfied with the decision of the Medical Board he has the right of appeal to the Minister. The Minister will not decide the case himself. If he thinks that a case is made, he will send it back to the Board for further consideration. Then there is the provision enabling the Board to call in a consultant from outside—a surgeon or physician of repute in the City of Dublin. He will be asked to come in and assist the Pensions Board in coming to a decision. That is a safeguard on behalf of the applicant. I think it goes a long way to meet any difficulty that Deputy Cooper or any other Deputy might have in the matter of giving due regard to cases put forward by applicants.
If this Appeal Board were set up I can say that it would be probably two years before any of the deserving cases or the hard cases that are going to be dealt with now would be finally settled. You would be bound to have appeals, perhaps, on both sides. I do not want to put any Board in a position that they will have to refuse every case. I would like to set up a Board in which I can have absolute confidence and the pensioner can have absolute confidence and which will see that fair play is done between the State and the applicant for a pension. That is the view I take of the matter. There is no use in setting up a Board in which you have not absolute confidence. It would be a wrong idea, to my mind, to have a Board who would have two sets of appeals thrown on them. They would not come to as reasonable or just a decision fearing that appeals would be coming up every day and going against them. When they know that they are to be final arbiters and that the Minister would accept their finding, they would be a much better Board. In the case of the Army Pensions Board at present appeals come along to me from people and if any kind of a good case is made I send them back for further consideration. That is the position I have taken up all along and I think it is a reasonable one. This Board now, as Deputy Cooper pointed out, is not conclusive. There is an appeal to the Minister. That appeal to the Minister is to have the case re-opened and to let the applicant produce whatever additional evidence he can. Further, you have the opinion of an eminent surgeon or physician of the City of Dublin brought to bear on the case. Taking everything into account the Bill as it stands gives a pretty good safeguard to the pensioner and no pensioner will have his case worsened by having it finally disposed of as laid down in the Bill.
In view of the Minister's statement that an outside medical man will be brought in to assist the Board can the same privilege be given to a claimant for a pension and will he be allowed to bring in a medical man to state his case for him? Is it right that an Appeal Board should give a decision against a man when other medical officers are satisfied that this man's case is a good and genuine one, worthy of compensation? In the law courts to-day you see very eminent medical men differing in their opinions. One may be engaged for the Tramways Company and the other for someone who met with an accident. You have conflicting opinions there and the matter is left in the hands of a judge. I can well believe that the decision of the judge, if it were only based on the view of one medical officer, would very often go against the claimant, whereas if the claimant is allowed to put his case properly and submit evidence by his own doctor it might change the views of the tribunal.
I shall reply to Deputy Byrne, although the matter is not in order. He is thinking of the expert witness who is brought in to give evidence in a certain direction. The man going to be brought in here, the surgeon or physician from outside, is not brought in on the side of the Government or of the taxpayer, but simply to do justice between both of them. He is not an expert in the sense in which Deputy Byrne refers to the medical witness of the Tramways Company. He is a man who is impartial and whose evidence no one could impeach.
Mr. BYRNE
The feeling will always be in the mind of a man that he has nothing to do with the selection of the medical officer brought in to advise, and that if he had he would have had a different medical officer to arbitrate. I think you ought to allow medical evidence to be submitted by the man's doctor.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The following amendments, in the name of the Minister, were agreed to:—
5. (As altered by the substitution of the date "16th day of December, 1926")—In page 4, Section 9 (3), line 54, to delete the words "date of the passing of this Act" and substitute therefor the word "12th day of December, 1926."
6. (As altered by the substitution of the date "16th day of December, 1916")—In page 5, Section 10 (3), in paragraph (a), to delete the words "date of the passing of this Act" and substitute therefor the words "12th day of December, 1926."
7. —In page 5, Section 11 (1), line 27, to insert after the word "wound" the words "attributable to his service in the forces and," and in lines 29 and 30 to delete the words "and in the course of his duty as such member."
8.—In page 5, Section 11 (4), line 54, to insert after the word "wound" the words "attributable to his service in the forces and," and in line 56 to delete the words "and in the course of his duty as such member."
9.—In page 6, Section 12 (1), line 17, to insert after the word "wound" the words "attributable to his service in the forces and," and in line 20 to delete the words "and in the course of his duty as such member."
10. —In page 6, Section 12 (4), line 50, to insert after the word "wound" the words "attributable to his service in the forces and," and in lines 52 and 53 to delete the words "and in the course of his duty as such member."
11. (As altered by the substitution of the date "16th day of December, 1926")—In page 7, Section 13 (3), line 58, to delete the words "passing of this Act," and substitute therefor the words "12th day of December, 1926."
12.—In page 9, Section 14, before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—"(4) Any gratuity granted under this section may, if the Minister so thinks proper, be paid in instalments of such amounts and at such times as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall consider expedient."
13.—In page 9, at the end of Section 14, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(8) A person's death shall be deemed to be due solely to disease within the meaning of this section notwithstanding that such death was in part due to or was hastened or contributed to by a wound received by such person during and attributable to service in the like forces or body (though not necessarily in the same period) as the service to which such disease is attributable."
14.—In page 10, Section 15 (1) (a), line 6, to insert after the word "forces" the words "or in circumstances attributable to his services in the forces."
15. —In page 10, Section 15 (1) (b), lines 9 and 10, to delete the words "in the course of his duty as a member of" and substitute therefor the words "attributable to his service in."
16. —In page 10, Section 15 (1) (c), lines 15 and 16, to delete the words "in the course of his duty as a member of" and substitute the words "attributable to his service in."
17. —In page 10, Section 15 (2) (a), line 36, to insert after the word "forces" the words "or in circumstances attributable to his service in the forces."
18. —In page 10, Section 15 (2) (b), lines 39 and 40, to delete the words "in the course of his duty as a member of" and substitute the words "attributable to his service in."
19. —In page 10, Section 15 (2) (c), line 46, to insert after the word "wound" the words "attributable to his service in," and in lines 46 and 47 to delete the words "in the course of his duty as a member of."
20. —In page 11, to add at the end of Section 15 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) A person's death shall be deemed to be due solely to a wound within the meaning of this section notwithstanding that such death was in part due to or was hastened or contributed to by disease attributable to service in the like forces or body (though not necessarily in the same period) as the service to which such wound is attributable."
21. —In page 14, to delete Section 26, lines 26 to 30.
I move amendment 22:—
In page 18, Third Schedule, Part I, 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."
There was some ambiguity about "annual pay," but this makes it clear that anything given for temporary or acting duty does not count as regards pension. It also makes it clear, however, that men in the engineering corps or the flying corps who get a rate of pay plus flying corps pay or engineer's pay, will get the pension on their full rate of pay.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 23:—
In page 18, Third Schedule, Part II, to delete the five lines immediately below the scale and beginning with the words "For the purposes" and ending with the words "held by him."
This amendment is brought in on account of a case put forward by Deputy Johnson, that the man should get a pension based on the actual rank which he held on his discharge. The note as it stood said that he had to have the rank six months prior to the date at which he was discharged. Under this amendment he will get the pension on the actual rank on which he was discharged.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 24:—
In page 22, Seventh Schedule, Part I, item number 3 (b), to delete the figures "£35" and substitute therefor the figures "£30."
There was some confusion about the figures £35 and £25 in the original Bill. Neither was right, and we have arrived at a figure of £30 in conformity with the remainder of the schedule. As a matter of fact, the proper amount would be £27 10s., but we have arrived at £30, which I think will be acceptable as being in favour of the pensioner.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed—"That the Bill, with amendments, be received for final consideration."
I wish to express my disappointment that two specific cases which I have brought before the Minister on many occasions have not apparently been covered by this Bill. They were cases due to accidents which occurred. In one case a man lost his foot and in the other a man lost his leg. In these cases the men were told that their injuries were due to carelessness on their part. If these men were in the employment of anybody else but the State they would be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Is it right or proper that because these men are accused of handling firearms contrary to regulations they should not be compensated by the State? In one case the young man was cleaning up in one of the barracks and lifted a sheet of iron, but he found that the handles were almost red-hot, with the result that he dropped the iron on his instep. After twelve months his foot had to be taken off. It was said that this was necessary owing to the presence of a tubercular bone in the instep, and that under the existing Act he could not be compensated. The other case I have brought before the House on many occasions, and I think it aroused the sympathies of every Deputy, including the Minister, if he could deal with it under the Act. It occurred in connection with the raid on Amiens Street Post Office. This young man happened to be washing up when the raid took place, and was not in uniform. He rushed upstairs to defend the premises and took up the rifle in such a way that it went off, wounding him, and he lost his leg as a consequence. Both these young men are now going around on crutches, are not able to secure any employment, and, apparently, are not entitled to any compensation. If they were in outside employment they would have got some compensation, no matter how small. I do not wish to blame the Government in this matter, but I would ask them to give sympathetic consideration to the cases of these young men. They are the only cases that do not appear to be dealt with under this Bill, because it is said that their injuries took place as a result of their own carelessness.
I know the two cases, and they are probably hard cases, as the Deputy has pointed out, but I do not know the facts. Courts of Inquiry were set up, and these cases were investigated. These courts had all the facts before them and heard all the evidence, both that of the persons who met with these accidents and other persons who witnessed them, and everybody who could throw any light on the matter. These Courts of Inquiry came to certain conclusions. The allegations were that there was carelessness, and the Court found accordingly. If these cases had come under the Workmen's Compensation Acts I do not think the applicants would fare any better, if carelessness was proved, before the Court. No man can get any benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he used due care in the execution of his duty and in the doing of the work for his employer.
Mr. BYRNE
The circumstances in one case were in connection with a raid.
A military court tried this matter and found that the man in question was doing his duty in a careless manner. A military court would not be more harsh than any other court in coming to a decision. They would have no interest in finding that the man had deliberately misused his weapon or handled it in a manner calculated to injure himself if such were not the facts of the case. I have every sympathy with those cases mentioned by the Deputy, and I wish that something could be done for them. The Deputy paraded the injured men here often enough, and I am sure we were all glad that he stopped it.
Mr. BYRNE
Doubt was expressed that such cases existed and that was the reason.
I was sorry to see them paraded here so often. I am practically powerless after the decision of the Court, which, having heard all the evidence, found that these men had not carried out their duties in a careful manner, and that they were negligent and brought these unfortunate accidents upon themselves.
The words in the Act are "serious negligence or misconduct." I do not think it would be possible to put in terms more generous than those.
Mr. BYRNE
May I hope that although the applications of these men have been turned down on previous occasions, they may be again given consideration, having regard to the words mentioned by the President.
There is nothing to prevent them applying to the Board.
Question put, and agreed to.
Final Stage ordered for Thursday, 24th March, 1927.
