Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1941

Vol. 81 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1940—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 2 to insert the following new section:—

2.—(1) Every application for the grant of a disability pension shall be made within twelve months after the date of the passing of this Act.

(2) Where an application was duly made before the passing of this Act by any person for a disability pension, and such application was refused on the grounds that the Act of 1927 did not apply to him, such person shall not be entitled by virtue of the preceding sub-section of this section to renew such application.

(3) Where a disability pension is granted to any person who applies therefor on or after the date of the passing of this Act, such pension shall commence as on and from such date (not being earlier than the date of the passing of this Act) as the Minister may determine.

(4) In this section the expression "disability pension" means a pension under Sections 9, 10 or 13 of the Act of 1927.

(5) Paragraph (b) of Section 26 of the Act of 1932 is hereby repealed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1 seems to meet amendment No. 2, which, being out of order, may not be moved.

Mr. Traynor

I am putting the amendment forward to meet, as far as possible, the amendment submitted by Deputy O'Higgins.

General Mulcahy

I think the Minister will be able to tell me that amendment No. 1 meets the general idea that is contained in Deputy O'Higgins's amendment; that is, that the type of case contemplated in the Deputy's amendment can now be opened up before the board inside 12 months after the passage of this legislation. The only point that may arise will be whether a case can be sustained.

Mr. Traynor

That is so.

Mr. Lynch

I wonder does it meet the Deputy's amendment? I do not thing amendment No. 1 covers what was desired in amendment No. 2. In amendment No. 2 any person applying within 12 months after the passing of this legislation would be entitled to have his case considered. I do not think that is so under amendment No. 1. If a person has been refused on the ground that the Act of 1927 did not apply to him heretofore, his case will not be reconsidered?

Mr. Traynor

No.

Mr. Lynch

I think Deputy O'Higgins's amendment was intended to allow anybody to come forward, even though he was already refused on the ground that the earlier Act did not apply. I think Deputy O'Higgins's amendment, from the reading of it, was intended to mean that such applicants should again be given an opportunity to make their applications and have them considered. I think there is a case for that. I know the Minister's argument will be that there must be some finality, and I think everybody will agree with him that there should be some finality. I think that if he gives another year from the passing of this measure there could certainly be a finality then, because very nearly 20 years will have expired since the Civil War.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy appears to be speaking to an amendment which is out of order.

Mr. Lynch

I am speaking to the Minister's amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have indicated that amendment No. 2 now being discussed by the Deputy is out of order.

General Mulcahy

But the idea is not out of order in the light of amendment No. 1.

Mr. Lynch

I am merely making the case that amendment No. 1 does not meet what was intended in amendment No. 2. I know that amendment No. 2 is out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would mean increased charges.

Mr. Lynch

Perhaps the Minister, between this and the Report Stage, will consider the proposition that Deputy O'Higgins put forward in amendment No. 2?

Mr. Traynor

I have gone as far as it was possible to go in the circumstances to meet Deputy O'Higgins's wishes; I could not go all the way. The cases which will be dealt with under this particular amendment are mentioned in the first paragraph of the amendment—"Every application for a grant of a disability pension shall be made within 12 months after the date of the passing of this Act." No person whose case has already been dealt with can come forward under this. If we do not have some finality in these cases they will be like the famous brook, going on for ever. We cannot permit that. All this matter was discussed on a previous occasion; arguments were put forward and carefully considered and it was not found possible, in the circumstances, to meet all the cases referred to by various Deputies. This is the limit to which I found it possible to go.

General Mulcahy

From the reading of the Minister's amendment, I think that a person to whom the 1927 Act in its general terms does not apply and who makes an application before the passing of this Act, will bring himself within the Minister's amendment.

Mr. Traynor

Every application shall be made within 12 months after the passing of this Act. If a person has had his case already examined and if, after it was thoroughly investigated, he was turned down for a pension, he cannot apply again under this legislation. But if he had an application in and it was not reached, that case can be heard now under this legislation. Any individual who feels he has developed a disease, arising out of his service, which was not noticeable before this, can now apply under this particular section.

Mr. Lynch

That is the point I was anxious to make. Suppose a man who was turned down under the 1927 Act, or subsequent amending Acts, has now developed a disease which, he contends, arose out of his service, is he to be excluded by reason of the fact that his case was determined at a time when he was not, perhaps, able to put it so convicingly as he could now? I have one particular case in mind. It is the case of a man who has been already in touch with the Minister for Agriculture. He is a good friend of the Government Party, and was a prominent supporter of theirs during the Civil War. To my own knowledge that man in recent years developed very serious nervous tremors. I think it can hardly be doubted that these developed through the extraordinary hardships that man went through, both in pre-Truce and post-Truce days. Under the Minister's amendment that man is precluded from applying again. The actual wording of the document refusing the pension precludes him because it says that he was not a person to whom the Act applied.

Mr. Byrne

I have in mind a case that is well known to every member of the House. It is the case of a young man who has been in touch, I believe, with every member of the House, judging by the amount of correspondence that I have received from him. He is a man who served in the old days, and was turned down on a claim for a disability pension based on tuberculosis. To meet him in the street one would think that he could not live very much longer. He claims that the disease arose out of his service. His application for a pension was turned down on more than one occasion, but he still persists, and he has hopes that he might have his claim reheard under this legislation. Is it likely that this case could be reheard under the terms of this Bill?

Mr. Traynor

Not when a decision has already been arrived at.

Mr. Byrne

No matter what new evidence may be produced?

Mr. Traynor

No.

Mr. Byrne

He can produce a doctor's certificate indicating that the tuberculosis began at a certain period. He has no chance?

Mr. Traynor

No.

New Section agreed to.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Byrne

Perhaps, Sir, on this section you would permit me to ask the Minister whether anything has been done, or will be done, for the widow of that gallant soldier, a man of the West, who sacrificed his life in an endeavour to save the lives of other people during Christmas week?

An Ceann Comhairle

The question does not arise. It is not relevant.

Mr. Byrne

I just thought that I might be allowed to mention it.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is quite irrelevant.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister knows the case I refer to. Something should be done for the widow.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

(2) Where an application was duly made before the date of the passing of this Act by a person for a dependent's allowance under Part VII of the Act of 1937, and such application was refused on the ground that the said Part VII did not apply to him, such person shall not, by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section, be entitled to renew his application.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 3.

To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:— (2) Sub-section (2) of section 38 of the Act of 1937 is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that save as provided by Part VII of the Act of 1937, no application for a dependent's allowance under the said Part VII which has been refused shall be reviewed after the expiration of two years from the date of the passing of this Act.

This amendment is designed to meet the wishes of several Deputies who approached me and drew my attention to this matter. I think this amendment covers their desires.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

This is a Bill about which there does not appear to be much controversy and, as it will confer a considerable amount of benefit on people affected by it, I respectfully request leave of the House to take the remaining stages now.

General Mulcahy

The point which Deputy Lynch was making remains to be dealt with.

Mr. Lynch

I was hoping that the Minister might discuss with the Minister for Agriculture the particular case which I mentioned. Otherwise, I have no objection to taking the remaining stages now.

Mr. Traynor

I shall undertake to discuss the case with the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Lynch

And then, if necessary, the Minister might introduce something in the Seanad to cover it.

Mr. Traynor

If any new evidence could be produced, which was not available at the time, we perhaps could bring it in under this Bill, but I do not want to make any definite promise.

Mr. Lynch

Perhaps the Minister would see the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Traynor

I shall undertake to discuss it with the Minister for Agriculture, without making any promise that anything can be done. I do not want to mislead the Deputy. I shall certainly look into the matter. I shall see the Deputy and get the name of the person.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.