Amendment 2, I am afraid, is out of order, because it is outside the scope of the Bill to begin with, and also purports to increase the charge on public funds. This cannot be done by a private Deputy. On the question of scope it is out of order in any case.
Superannuation and Pensions Bill, 1929.—Third Stage.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
The following amendment was on the Order Paper:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words:—
"Provided that where a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary has resigned or been dismissed or was discharged on gratuity from that Force on or after the 1st day of April, 1916, and before the 6th day of December, 1921, such resignation or dismissal or discharge on gratuity being certified by the Minister and the Minister for Justice, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Principal Act, then as from the 1st day of April, 1922, his pension shall be of an amount not less than the amount of the compensation allowance to which he would have been entitled if he had continued to serve in the Force until that date and been required to retire therefrom on that date under the provisions of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1922."
(—Patrick Ruttledge).
Would the Minister consider what is intended in that amendment, that is, that those men who resigned or were dismissed would not be in a worse position than the men who continued on which, I understand, was the promise at the time made to them.
The point of view that Deputy Ruttledge embodies in this amendment was possibly the view that would have been taken a year or two ago. It is possible that if we were very flush financially we might do it but I do not think that these men have just the same claim as the other resigned and dismissed men. I do not want to rule men out of the right of pension. Certainly it was not the intention when the original Bill was being passed to rule these men out of having a pension simply because they succeeded in convincing the R.I.C. authorities that they were suffering from ill-health and succeeded in getting a gratuity. Nevertheless their position is a little different from that of the men who went out and got nothing but simply threw up their positions. This particular group were trying to have the best of both worlds. They were trying to make sure to have the best they could out of the R.I.C. in case nothing came of the national movement and consequently, I do not think their claim to absolute equality of treatment with the men who remained on is the same as that of those others who were classified under the original Act as resigned and dismissed.
There is a factor—I do not disguise its importance to my mind in this matter—and that is to adopt this amendment or anything like it would involve a payment of some £14,000 or so in the present year. We are effecting all sorts of economies which impose hardships on individuals and it seems to me that as these men have not an absolutely water-tight case for precisely equal treatment with the others who took their courage in their hands and also went out without getting a penny I do not think they should be given these pensions. They will do pretty well if they get their pensions from now on.
I want to point out that the Minister states they are not in the same position now for example, as if we were dealing with them a year or two ago.
I did not say that exactly.
You said money was not as flush as it was a year or two ago.
Exactly.
I do not see what the question of whether money is flush or not is going to do with the merits. These men or others with them who resigned or were dismissed at that time got a definite promise of no less generous terms than the men who remained in the force. The Minister will find that a large number of cases were not dealt with. Pensions should be given to these men, many of whom are in a stronger position than people who have already got pensions greater than they will get now. In that way it seems a hardship will be inflicted in many desirable cases.
I think the Deputy misunderstands. Anyone who happens to be entitled as a resigned or dismissed man will get his pension from the date of the commencement of the original Act. This only applies to the men who got medical gratuities, not to any others whose cases may still be under consideration.
I know that.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move:
Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:
"After the passing of this Act the powers conferred on the Minister and the Minister for Justice by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act shall be exercisable on the recommendations of a Committee consisting of three persons, two of whom shall be nominated by the Minister and one of whom shall be nominated by the organisation known as the `Dismissed and Resigned R.I.C. Organisation.'
Of the two members of the Committee to be nominated by the Minister one shall be a Barrister of at least five years' standing. The Minister shall have power to make regulations for the conduct of its business by the Committee constituted in accordance with this section."
When the Bill was receiving its Second Reading a certain form of Committee was indicated. I suggested the composition of a certain form of Committee to investigate the claims of those men whose cases were still outstanding. Seeing that the other proposal that I put before the Minister as regards the Committee of members of the House did not meet with the Minister's approval, I now move an alternative amendment.
When the previous Bill dealing with resigned and dismissed R.I.C. was before the Dáil such a Committee was set up to investigate their claims. As was pointed out in the Second Reading of this Bill, the Committee operated at a time when it was very difficult to get all these cases inquired into, or to get evidence brought before the Committee to get cases investigated in the way in which they might be investigated now. Civil strife was in the country at the time, and a large number of these people had no opportunity of putting their cases before the Committee. As well as that, no particulars were given as to what were the decisions of the Committee in a very large number of cases. I think it is only fair and reasonable that a Committee such as that which is now proposed by this amendment should be set up to inquire into these cases, to investigate them and to report to the Minister. Two or three members of that Committee will be selected by the Minister himself. One, a barrister, might be a guide to the Committee in the way of following the regular procedure. I think it is a very reasonable amendment, and one that will make for the more satisfactory and easy operation of this Bill than if every case had to be gone into by the Minister in the way that has been going on for some time.
I desire to support the principle of the amendment. The Minister is aware that in the cases of those who felt they were entitled to receive pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act of 1925 a statutory body was set up to investigate the claims of the individuals concerned and in all cases an opportunity to appear before the Board was given. The same principle, to a certain extent, was included in the Military Service Pensions Act, 1927. A Board consisting of legal men was set up to inquire into the claims of those who had reason to believe that they suffered physically as a result of their activities, both pre-Truce and during service in the National Army. I do not know whether the Minister will accept or reject this amendment to set up a Committee, one member of which shall be nominated by the organisation known as the Dismissed and Resigned R.I.C. Association. The Minister may object because there is a demand made for the inclusion of a representative of a particular section. I felt, after having heard the cases of certain individuals who put their cases before the original Committee and whose claims were passed by the Committee and eventually turned down by the Minister, that they have not been fairly and justly treated. I feel that there is a good case, particularly so far as a small section of individuals are concerned, for review of those cases, and, to that extent, I agree with the principle of the amendment moved by Deputy Ruttledge.
I hope the Minister will agree to set up some body to investigate the claims of about 50 or 60 persons whose claims were passed by the Committee and who were eventually refused pensions under the Pensions and Superannuation Act of 1923. There is something to be said for a revision of a certain number of the cases, whether it be by the Minister himself, a Departmental Committee or a Committee such as is suggested by Deputy Ruttledge. I hope that some Committee will be set up and that these cases will be reviewed by a proper body. I think that proper consideration has not been given to quite a number of cases and, therefore, there is a case for some such Committee as that suggested by Deputy Ruttledge.
I am not sure whether this particular amendment is not outside the scope of the Bill. It seems to me to aim at setting up a Committee to re-open a number of cases which have been dealt with, or, at any rate, to revise the machinery of the original Act with respect to persons whose cases are not being dealt with under this Bill at all.
This Bill is a Bill to extend the class of persons to whom Section 5 of the Principal Act applies. It is certainly in order to put down an amendment to the effect that the powers given in the amended section should now be exercised in connection with the Committee. In so far as the Committee could go into other cases, not contemplated by this particular Bill, the Minister's point would probably be sound. The amendment may need some further amendment, but it is, to the extent I have indicated, in order.
The principle of the Bill, in so far as it deals with men and not with widows, is to enable pensions to be given to men whose cases have already been passed by the Committee of Inquiry, but whose pensions have not been granted because it has been ruled that the previous Act did not admit them.
I submit that the Minister's point is not correct to the extent that there is another class in the Bill. Widows are entitled to pensions under this Bill. They were not entitled to pensions under the original Act.
There are also some cases, I understand, of men whose cases did not come before the Committee, but who applied to the Minister since, and who have submitted evidence to the Minister. Surely these people, who may not have applied to the Committee, but who have applied to the Minister since, would come under the present Act.
My view is that the present Bill, in so far as men are concerned, does not really affect anybody except a certain small group of people whose cases have been passed by the Committee.
What about the last clause in the Bill? These cases did not come before the original Committee.
This Bill extends the classes to whom the original Act applies. I do not know if Deputy Ruttledge means that this amendment should be mandatory.
No, I do not.
I am not prepared to accept the amendment. First of all, so far as people dealt with under Section 2 are concerned, there is no need for it and it does not arise. So far as the other applications are concerned, it is true that certain cases were passed by the Committee and were not afterwards allowed by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice. A certain number of cases which had been before the Committee were not even examined by the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Justice until recently. There are some cases the examination of which has not yet been completed, but I certainly am not prepared at this stage to agree to setting up a statutory board, and I do not think that any examination that would be any more satisfactory could be carried out by such a committee at this stage than could be carried out departmentally. I would not be prepared to set up a sort of committee, such as that suggested, which would be able to give a decision which must be acted on. If I were setting up a committee of that kind, I would simply appoint a legal man and set up a legal tribunal, but not a committee of this sort giving it powers of decision. If it was intended not to give it powers of decision, then, in my opinion, it is not necessary, nor would it be useful at present to have such a committee set up.
As Deputies are aware, the matter was investigated by a Committee on which there were representatives of the Resigned and Dismissed R.I.C. Association. There was a Chairman appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs, as he then was; there was a representative of the Department of Home Affairs, a representative of the Department of Finance, and, as I say, two representatives of the Resigned and Dismissed R.I.C. Association. That Committee passed a considerable number of cases. In a good number of these further investigation revealed additional facts, and, consequently, grounds were found to exist for refusing pensions to individuals whose claims had been passed. In other cases it was decided, as a result of short service, that pensions would not be given, and, except, I think, in one case, men under four years service were not given pensions. A small number of cases which were not before the Committee have come in since and have been examined in precisely the same way as those which came before the Committee and which were recommended. In one or two cases where it was felt that a man who was rejected by the Committee had not, owing to disturbed conditions of the time, a full opportunity of bringing his case before the Committee, pensions were allowed where they had not been actually passed by the Committee. In general, cases that were turned down by the Committee were not looked at at all.
As I stated before to Deputy Ruttledge, if there are cases which have not yet been examined, I would be prepared to have them examined departmentally as if they were before the Committee, and I would be prepared, after that examination had been carried through, to deal with them as all other cases were dealt with, but I would have to have some better evidence than that given previously, because there can be no doubt that with the lapse of time evidence has become generally somewhat less reliable. Men do not recollect so well and, if somebody comes to them and asks them to recollect facts, we are liable to have obliging letters written. Consequently, it would be necessary to examine these cases a little bit more carefully. They can be, and ought to be, examined by practically the same machinery that ultimately passed the other cases. I would not, however, think of letting a Committee loose on all cases turned down. Men whose cases may have been rejected on political grounds before, or whose cases may not have been considered because of their activities, are now getting the same sort of consideration and examination as other people. They cannot get anything different. They cannot claim to have the advantage of the support of some special tribunal which other men had not. It would neither be necessary nor fair to set up some sort of new tribunal at this stage.
I support this proposal to set up a tribunal or one somewhat similar to that suggested in the amendment. I do so for two reasons. In the first instance, I am satisfied that the Minister for Finance should not be expected, and has not the time, to go into cases which Deputies or other people might think call for re-consideration or revision. On the other hand, I know perfectly well that the original Committee composed, as the Minister for Finance has said, of representatives of the Department of Home Affairs, of the Department of Finance and, for a short period, of the Dismissed and Resigned R.I.C. Association did not consider the claims in an atmosphere of reality. The whole question was considered in a warlike atmosphere.
You had recommendations, character references, and so on, in support of applications for pensions on behalf of A or B. One individual, for instance, might have come with a recommendation from an old member of the I.R.A., who, in 1922, went into the so-called Irregulars. Another person, perhaps, had a recommendation from an officer of the I.R.A. who remained neutral, and another individual had a recommendation from an old I.R.A. officer who, perhaps, went into the National Army and was serving with it at the time. I suggest—I do not do it with any disrespect to the opinions of the Minister—that any recommendations coming from individuals who had service with the I.R.A. pre-Treaty, and who went against the Treaty afterwards and fought against the Government, did not count very much, and, perhaps in the long run, prejudiced the Minister in his consideration of those recommended by the Committee. I will pay this tribute to the Minister for Finance. I believe that he is the one member of the Ministry who, since the Fianna Fáil members came into the House, has endeavoured to create a better atmosphere. That fact is proved by the consideration he has given to the claim submitted by Mr. McElligott. In my opinion, if a Committee had been set up, such as that suggested by Deputy Ruttledge, with a legal Chairman, the Minister would have had more respect for such a Committee when he considered Mr. McElligott's claim. People may think what they like about the consideration which influenced the Minister eventually to sanction the payment of a pension to Mr. McElligott. He gave his reasons in the House, and he said that the entry of Fianna Fáil created a different atmosphere and that his own original decision was not based on proper information.
No; the Deputy is wrong. There was no decision except that none of these cases of men who were believed to be mixed up with the Irregulars should be considered at all.
I suggest that there was a refusal to pay the pension.
To consider it even. That was the decision, and that was the decision taken in similar cases at that time.
And perhaps in cases other than that of Mr. McElligott?
Of course.
And in the cases of persons who have not received payment of pensions so far, but Mr. McElligott was one of the lucky ones?
These were cases that were considered by the Committee.
I fully realise that Mr. McElligott's case was considered by the original Committee and naturally any Committee who knew anything about anybody who had such claims as Mr. McElligott had, would not deny that he was entitled to a pension. If there is any justification for the payment of pensions under the Superannuation and Pensions Act of 1923, there certainly should be for awarding pensions in the case of the three men who seduced, the R.I.C. from their allegiance, and Mr. McElligott was one of them. The Minister knows that perfectly well.
There are other factors.
I know. I think the Minister has touched upon some of them. The Minister is too busy to be asked to go into the cases of men who feel they have a grievance. I therefore support the amendment proposed by Deputy Ruttledge.
There seems to be a difference in my mind and in that of the Minister as to the number of cases. My impression is that there is a very large number of cases. The impression the Minister conveyed is that there are very few cases. If my information is correct there is a considerable number of cases. It may be that the Minister is thinking of the few cases that make an impression on him as being genuine cases whereas, if other evidence were brought before the Minister, it might transpire that there is a large number of these people who have genuine claims that should be brought before some judicial Committee. If the Minister has any objection to the composition of the Committee, I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of a judicial Committee, or some judicial body—let the Minister nominate it—that will examine and go into these particular cases. As Deputy Davin pointed out, when the claims of these people were considered before, they were considered in a warlike atmosphere and at a time when many of them could not come forward or were not able to vouch their claims in a way that they would have vouched them at a different time or in a different set of circumstances. If there was a reason for setting up a Committee then and if there is now a large number of cases or even any considerable number of cases outstanding, it is only reasonable that a Committee should be set up to inquire into them now. I would be satisfied if some judicial Committee were set up to investigate these claims and let us finish with them once and for all.
I think there is probably some confusion about the matter. I am not asking the Deputy to withdraw his amendment, but I would be prepared, before the next stage of the Bill, whatever happens the amendment, to try to give some information to the Deputy which would satisfy him as to the numbers. My impression is that the number of cases that require reconsideration is very small indeed. I am not prepared, in cases which were definitely turned down with the consent of the Minister for Justice, after examining all the facts, and in exercise of the discretion given under the previous Act, to re-open these cases at all or to set up any tribunal to re-open them. There is also a considerable number of those which were passed by the first Committee which have since been rejected, because we were able, by additional evidence that was obtained, to show that the award of pensions was not right. We were able to show that men were discharged from the R.I.C. for drunkenness and various other reasons, cases that had no political complexion, cases in which it was never suggested that the applicants were in any way associated with the opposite Party, but in which we were satisfied that the applications were improper. These were properly considered and properly turned down. I am not prepared to reconsider these cases unless some fresh evidence has come to hand. There is a great number for which no case can be made, and I am satisfied that no fresh evidence can be brought forward.
I am not prepared to have some new set of cases that have not yet come forward or been fully considered, or to allow cases in which there was some political element, to be put to a tribunal which did not deal with the main bulk of the cases. For that reason I am not prepared to agree to set up a tribunal to consider cases which were set aside and were not considered, although reported on by the Committee, because they have been associated with the Irregular forces or were believed to be associated with them. I am prepared to consider cases which did not come before the Committee and to have them examined in precisely the same way as if they had been passed by the Committee, cases which did not come up and in which we had good reason for believing a man had not an opportunity of applying. He might have been in internment, or perhaps something else prevented him from applying. I am prepared to have these cases considered in the same manner by the Departmental officials as if they had been recommended by the Committee, but if they had not sent in applications the lapse of time does make one rather more doubtful about them. If the Deputy thinks of this problem in terms of large numbers, probably what has happened is that people who were turned down and who perhaps had no associations with his political Party until recently, have been approaching Deputies of that Party, having done all they could in other directions in previous years, to get their cases re-opened. I am satisfied that cases which would merit any further consideration are really very small in number. As I say, independent of the fate of this particular amendment, I would be prepared to see the Deputy with the officials who have been dealing with these cases and at least satisfy him whether he is right or wrong about the numbers, and give him all the information that is available so as to come to a conclusion.
I think the Minister thinks that there is a bigger turnover to our Party than there really is.
I find a difficulty in putting the question on the amendment, in so far as the amendment applies to cases already decided upon under the Principal Act. As I read the amendment, it is to create an Advisory Committee to the Minister in the exercise of the power given under Section 2 of the Bill. That is, of course, absolutely within the scope of the Bill to that extent, but in so far as the amendment, as it is worded, indicates a Committee that is to deal with cases already decided upon, then undoubtedly, on the point of order, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
The Minister has stressed the point, and I presume he can produce cases to justify his statement, that after certain cases had been recommended by the Committee he, or the heads of his Department, discovered that the individuals whose claims were passed by the Committee had in reality been dismissed from the R.I.C. for drunkenness, we will say. I want to ask the Minister if his information is based on hearsay, on verbal conversations that the heads of his Department had with officials of the Colonial Office in London, or if he has on record copies of statements from the Colonial Office showing that these men were dismissed for drunkenness.
I am not going to tell the Deputy.
If the Minister was in a position to say that the British records, which I know his Department has had the advantage of seeing, stated that so-and-so was dismissed for drunkenness, that would stop a claim as far as I am concerned.
At any rate, I have it in writing in such a way that I have no doubt of the cases to which that applies—absolutely no doubt about it.
The amendment must be postponed to the next Stage.
For the purpose of getting it re-formed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Is amendment 5 covered by sub-section (7) (a) to amendment 8?
Yes.
The Minister gave an assurance, and I realise that it is the Minister's obligation to put it into effect.
Yes.
Amendment not moved.
I move:—
In sub-section (4) (c), line 40, to insert in brackets after the word "service" the words "(if any)." This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I think amendment 7 is also covered.
Amendment not moved.
I move:—
To insert at the end of the section three new sub-sections as follows:—
(5) This section also applies to a widow—
(a) whose deceased husband resigned or was dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary on or after the 1st day of April, 1916, and before the 6th day of December, 1921, and died before the passing of the Principal Act and is the subject of a certificate given (before or after the passing of this Act) under and in accordance with Section 5 of the Principal Act and in the opinion of the Committee of Inquiry mentioned in Section 2 of this Act resigned or was dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary because of his national sympathies, and
(b) whose marriage to such deceased husband took place while he was serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and
(c) who is not eligible for a pension, gratuity or other allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1923, or the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 and 1927, or in respect of her deceased husband's service (if any) in the Gárda Síochána.
(6) This section also applies to a widow—
(a) whose deceased husband died before the passing of this Act and would, if he had survived the passing of this Act, have been qualified for the grant of a pension under Section 2 of this Act, and
(b) whose marriage to such deceased husband took place while he was serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and
(c) who is not eligible for a pension, gratuity or other allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1923, or the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 and 1927, or in respect of her deceased husband's service (if any) in the Gárda Síochána.
(7) (a) A pension or allowance granted to a widow to whom this section is applied by sub-section (4) of this section may commence from the end of the last period in respect of which her deceased husband's pension was paid.
(b) A pension or allowance granted to a widow to whom this section is applied by sub-section (5) of this section may commence from the passing of the Principal Act.
(c) A pension or allowance granted to a widow to whom this section is applied by sub-section (6) of this section may commence from the passing of this Act.
This amendment is to carry out the agreement which I expressed with Deputy Davin and Deputy Ruttledge to provide for the widows of deceased R.I.C. pensioners and to pay them from the date of the husband's death, or from the date on which he would have received a pension in case he was a person who had not become a pensioner.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
I am afraid amendment 9 is out of order on several heads. It is outside the scope of the Bill, and that rules the amendment out.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title stand part of the Bill."
I move:—
In line 22 to insert after the word and figure "Section 5" the words "and to the widows of certain other deceased former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
This is a consequential amendment to the Title.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 11 falls, for the same reason as amendment 9, and is not moved.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments and with an amendment to the Title.
Report Stage ordered for April 10th.