Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1938

Vol. 70 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—Army Pensions.

Tairigim:

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1938, chun Pinsean Créachta agus Mí-ábaltachta, Pinsean Breise agus Pinsean Fear Pósta, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí (Uimh. 26 de 1923, Uimh. 12 de 1927, Uimh. 24 de 1932, agus Uimh. 15 de 1937); chun Pinsean Seirbhíse Míleata, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí (Uimh. 48 de 1924, Uimh. 26 de 1932, agus Uimh. 43 de 1934); chun Pinsean; Liúntaisí agus Aiscí (Uimh. 37 de 1936); agus chun Síntiúisí agus Costaisí iolardha ina dtaobh san, etc.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1938, for Wound and Disability Pensions, further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932 and No. 15 of 1937), Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, and No. 43 of 1934), Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936), and for sundry Contributions and Expenses in respect thereof, etc.

Isé críoch an Mheastacháin seo chun an Scéim Fórsaí Cosanta (pinsin) do daingnigheadh le rún ó Dháil Eireann an seachtú lá fichead do Dheireadh Fhoghmhair, 1937, do chur in éifeacht ó taobh an airgeadais. Míle, sé chéad is sé púint fhichead an tsuim airgid atá ag teastáil chun glanadh na bhfiachaisí atá iníochtha cheana no a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochtha roimh an aonmhadh lá triochad de Mhárta, 1938.

Is mar leanas atá an tsuim sin códhéanta:— Pinsin do dhá Oifigeach, £135; Deich bpinsin do Chéimnigh eile, £25; Aiscí do thrí Oifigeach, £589; Céad agus aon Aisce caogad do Chéimnigh eile, £877; An tiomlán, £1,626.

Tá an tsuim seo á h-íoc as Colgealtaisí ar an Bhóta i gcoitchinne, agus fágann san ná fuil ag teastáil anois ach comharthashuim, £10.

Although this particular Estimate is confined to moneys for pensions for members of the Defence Forces, there are one or two points which I should like to make. They may not be strictly relevant but this would appear to be a suitable opportunity to obtain an answer regarding it.

The Deputy was scarcely prudent in hinting that the points he proposed to raise might be irrelevant.

I used the word "may". There seems to be a tremendous amount of doubt and confusion, which I consider nationally unhealthy, as to what becomes of a person's claim for an Army pension when that claim is lodged. So far as the ordinary Deputy or the ordinary applicant can ascertain, there is no regular procedure. Cases are not taken in the order in which they are lodged with the Department. They do not appear to be taken according to rank. They do not appear to be taken according to geographical units. Cases seem to be taken in the order in which, I might say, influence brings them to the top. Within the past week, I had occasion to inquire with regard to the position of one or two applicants whose applications had been made about three years ago. The answer I got from the Department of Defence was to the effect that the application had been received but that no information could be given as to when it was likely to be dealt with. What the views of any of us were when that particular piece of legislation was passing through the House, does not matter. I opposed it and would oppose it again to-morrow. At the same time, I stand for a person getting his full rights under the law when a measure becomes law. It appears to me that there is some undue delay or, at least, some delay that has not been satisfactorily explained, in dealing with these claims. I am aware that there is a recognised tribunal to deal with these applications, outside the Department of Defence, acting in the name of the old I.R.A. That appears to be an ideal type of machinery for dealing with the claims of those who are members of that organisation but there are many people entitled to pensions and thousands of people entitled to claim pensions who are not members of that organisation. It appears to me that these people are shoved out and that their claims are delayed in consideration because the other body is semi-officially recognised. I am not claiming to make statements of fact; I am speaking as a person who is puzzled, as a person who is meeting a great number of people who ask "Would you do something to get my claim considered; it was lodged three or four years ago?" The only manner in which a Deputy can get information is by writing to the Department. If he gets a reply from the Department to the effect that they cannot say when a claim will be considered, where on earth are we? If we had information as to what decides priority, we should be, able to come to some judgement of our own as to when a claim would probably be considered. I suggest to the Minister that when dealing with poor people —and most of these people are poor —it is unreasonable to pass an Act in 1932 or 1933 entitling them to pensions and to state in 1938 that the Department concerned cannot say when a pension claim will be considered.

I should like to call the Minister's attention to another matter in order, if possible, to get his influence directed towards investigating it and discussing it with a colleague in the Ministry. In connection with the moneys that unemployed people are entitled to under the Unemployment Assistance Act, there seems to be a procedure at the labour exchanges that is very unjust to the Army pensioner. I shall mention one case which I happened to inquire into within the past week——

I know the case to which Deputy O'Higgins is going to allude. He has already raised one matter which does not come within the Vote and I do not think that he should now raise a matter for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible. I cannot amend regulations passed under the Unemployment Assistance Act.

I introduced the subject by asking the Minister if he would be good enough, out of consideration for ex-Army men, to use his influence with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with this matter. If the Minister desires to prevent me from making such an appeal to him, then the appeal will not be made but, surely, if there is one person in Dáil Eireann who is responsible for using any influence he has to ensure that fair play will be meted out to Army pensioners, it should not be inappropriate to ask the assistance of that individual. Just to illustrate the point, which I will not develop——

That is a point on which the Chair has something to say. The Deputy realises now that the first matter he mentioned does not arise on this Vote. The procedure on Supplementary Estimates has always been that Deputies are confined to the amount in the Supplementary Estimate and the purpose for which it is required. The Deputy now desires to go outside the Department of Defence and appeal to another Department——

No; I am appealing to the head of the Department of Defence.

An indirect appeal to another Department would be irrelevant.

I am appealing to the head of the Department of Defence to listen for three minutes, or for one minute, to a situation in which a pensioner of his finds himself and, after that, to do what he thinks best, or to do nothing as apparently he thinks is the best thing to do. I will raise it no further.

As Deputy O'Higgins has been stopped from talking about unemployment assistance, I will not talk about it. The Deputy raised another matter which does not belong to this particular Supplementary Estimate — the whole procedure in regard to applications for military service pensions. The procedure, roughly, is that an applicant sends in his form of application which is referred to the referee. The referee and the board advising him have done their utmost to get representative committees together in the old brigades to advise and assist them. Those local committees have given the referee, where they worked properly, lists of the personnel and the offices held on the two critical dates, and they have also given lists of people who, in their opinion, have qualifying service. I look on it as important that we should try to clear up the really deserving cases first — the cases of people who have a clear claim to a pension. There are all told about 50,000 applications in hands and already over 5,000 have been dealt with. The majority of those were dealt with in the last year. It was very difficult in the first year or two to get the proper information from the various localities that would enable the referee and the board to make up their minds as to what service an applicant had and what his rank was on either of the critical dates. Three years sounds a long time to deal with 5,000 cases, but I have indicated that the rate of dealing with them has gone up considerably in the last year, over half of the 5,000 cases having been dealt with in the last 12 months.

The Deputy, I am sure, had some experience of the 1924 Act and will remember that it took over four years to deal with 3,000 people who finally got pensions out of a total of about 30,000 applications. At that time, they were much nearer to the period for which the service was claimed and the board had written information about one period of service that was necessary for qualification. They had written documentary evidence, official records. In this case, no such records exist and in a situation in which some time has elapsed since the service was given and written records are absent the referee has, in three years, done almost twice as much as was done in four years under the 1924 Act. I am not satisfied; I wish to goodness we had some method by which we could clear off all these cases at once, but it is impossible to do it. There is no mathematical rule, no fixed standard by which we can get these pensions assessed overnight. The thing has to be centralised at some point in order that there may be a fixed standard, so far as is humanly possible, applied to the service of those who put forward claims. That means finally that the cases have to go to the board and the referee and that prevents us from expanding the staff to deal with them much more quickly. I have expanded the staff within the last 12 months to the point of maximum efficiency. If we go beyond that point, we shall be getting inefficient results.

The Deputy asked a question as to members of the old I.R.A. and where they come in. They come in the same as anybody else. The cases taken first are those of people who have, on the face of their claims, made a decent case for a pension. There are 50,000 applicants and one can see, on looking through them, that vast numbers of them did not claim even to have the service required. They can be turned down without examination because they did not make even a prima facie case to entitle them to a pension.

Were they notified to that effect?

No, not yet, but arrangements are being made to notify them. The principal work I asked the referee to do was to sort out the applications that showed a fair case for a pension and to deal with the people who were genuine applicants first.

Would the Minister agree that it would be desirable, in the case of persons whose claims he has referred to, which on the face of them have not the service necessary, these people should be notified that their claim is not allowed?

I agree, and arrangements have been made over the last six months to do that; but I do not want that, or anything else, to interfere with the work of the referee or the board in dealing with the legitimate claims. That is one of the reasons why we cannot give a particular answer to the thousands of letters we are getting of the type to which the Deputy has alluded: "Why cannot the Department say when a claim is likely to be heard?"

So far as I could follow the Minister, his claim was that each case fell into one of two classes —the bogus class or the genuine class. The bogus class had not been dealt with because there was nothing to deal with, but they had not yet been notified, and the other class, the genuine class, would be dealt with. If you cut them down by half and a man happens to be in the genuine class, surely it is possible to give an estimate as to when his case will be reached?

It would be possible in an individual case to do so, but there are such numbers of that type of inquiry coming in that, if we were to go through all the work necessary to answer them in detail, the work could not go on and nothing could be done. We have to close down on the giving of detailed answers to that type of question.

When a claim is four years lying in your office.

Yes. We have a certain number of people to do a piece of work, and I do not want to dissipate their energies on work that is not necessary.

Does the Minister not agree that ten times as many as did the same work in 1924 are doing the work with more expedition?

We are doing the work with more expedition.

With ten times as many people doing it.

I alluded to the difficulties that exist now which did not exist in 1924.

On the Minister's calculation that last year the work was done rapidly, that you had 2,000 cases dealt with, it will take 25 years, at the expeditious rate, to deal with the 50,000 claims.

It will not. We are making arrangements as quickly as possible to notify those who have not made a prima facie case for a pension. We are going to notify them that on their papers they have not made prima facie cases, and that they are turned down. As I stated before, I would like if we could deal with them all over night. That is impossible. Having regard to the difficulties of the situation, I think the referee and the staff have made good progress, particularly within the past 12 months.

There is a snag here that I should like to mention. In the last Pensions Act there was a special provision that, where it was established that the statutory requirements were not complied with by the tribunal that considered claims, these people would be entitled to have their claims reopened and re-examined. Prior to that, once the tribunal had dealt with a claim, it was not open to the claimant to make any further representations with regard to it. I gather now from the Minister that a cursory examination has led his officers to conclude that a very substantial number of claims had no merit, and had not made even a prima facie case. I want to sound a note of warning, to ensure that the Minister will insist on all statutory requirements being complied with in arriving at the conclusion that a claim had no merits. Otherwise, assuming that he rejects categorically 10,000 claims, unless the statutory requirements are complied with, every one of these 10,000 claims can bound backwards under this section, and every one of them can produce fresh evidence. I need hardly say that if 10,000 claims go out to the country with a note that they have not made a prima facie case, and that they can come back, they will then make a very convincing prima facie case. That is something to be closely watched, because very serious embarrassment might arise. I propose to add a word to that which will not please the Minister so well. We are engaged in distributing pensions to a percentage of 50,000 odd people. Sooner or later this House will have to put itself this question — and we ought to set up a Government inquiry into it—“How many citizens of this State are living on the Government?”

That does not arise on this. This is a Supplementary Estimate for £10, a token Vote.

It is, and it adds substantially to the number of pensions. I think the time has come——

The administration of the Act does not arise.

The effective administration of it adds substantially to the number of pensioners.

The Deputy is out of order in discussing administration.

Surely this is providing facilities for the provision of pensions.

I want to know at what point are we to deal with the question of having so many pensioners that we cannot afford them. This is a proposal to give pensions to someone. I want to ask are we ever to come to the point that we have got to the limit of what the public purse will stand?

Obviously that is not in order.

Can I argue that no further pensions should be given on the ground that——

Not on this Estimate.

This is only a Supplementary Estimate.

To make the position quite clear; on a Supplementary Estimate a Deputy can discuss only the amount required and the specific purpose for which it is required.

The amount required is £10 to give pensions. May I argue that the £10 should not be given on the grounds that we should not give pensions to X, Y, Z?

Possibly, if there were an amendment to reduce the amount.

I do not propose an amendment, but the text of my observations will be against the Supplementary Estimate. It seems to me that the £10 is required to facilitate the granting of pensions. All I say is that there ought to be a time when we will give no more pensions to anyone. I will not proceed with that argument if you are against it.

The Deputy realises that this is statutory? Legislation may not be discussed.

Yes, but also discretionery. There comes a point when this ought to stop. I suggest that we ought to fix that time.

On a Supplementary Estimate no fundamental question of that description may be raised.

I do not know if it is fundamental or not.

In the opinion of the Chair it is.

Very well.

In the course of his remarks the Minister said that a cursory examination showed that a very large number of the claims fell because a prima facie case was not made out. He also mentioned that the Act of 1924 provided pensions for a number of persons who were entitled to draw them. Two cases came under my personal observation that would have been debarred under the original Pensions Act. These were pensioners perfectly qualified who were subsequently granted pensions, but they would have been included amongst those not having prima facie cases. I should like to know if any special effort is made to help persons who are not competent to fill up the forms? Is there anyone to give them information necessary to substantiate their claims? In one of the cases I refer to references were asked for. It was quite clear to anyone who has experience of public documents that the persons concerned could not possibly give the evidence required in favour of the applicants. They pointed out that it was a different sort of evidence was required. In another case there was very much more than a prima facie case made, but the pensioner would have been refused but for assistance that was afforded him. I want to know whether there is anyone attached to this Department to perform duties somewhat analogous to those performed by the Soldiers' Friend in the British Army, or whether any help whatever is given to applicants to aid them in getting the information required to make their case? I am not making any case in respect of persons who would not be qualified. I say that in the case of every person who is qualified, and who has not the means at his disposal to make it, assistance should be given to him to do so.

The operations of the referee and of the board are designed to find out if a man is entitled to a pension and, if so, to give it to him. The form is complicated, but even though a man does not set out all the details necessary in the form that will not be held against him, and if there is a reclaim he can bring forward witnesses to prove it. The claims are decided not upon the evidence that is in the document itself. There is also an oral examination of the applicant. Any applicant who has a good case gets every possible opportunity of proving it.

No applicant is turned down until there has been a verbal hearing?

That is not so. If an applicant does not claim that he was one of the forces for which pensions are provided, or that he gave service in a period, what would be the good of hearing him?

Vote agreed to and reported.

Barr
Roinn