Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions. – Dáil Éireann (10th Dáil) – Thursday, 26 Mar 1942

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £396,063 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1943, 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, Uimh. 15 de 1937 agus Uimh. 2 de 1941), Pinsean, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí Seirbhíse Míleata (Uimh. 48 de 1924, Uimh. 26 de 1932, Uimh. 43 de 1934 agus Uimh. 33 de 1938), Pinsean, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí (Uimh. 37 de 1936), agus chun síntiúisí agus costaisí iolardha ina dtaobh san, etc.

That a sum not exceeding £396,063 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1943, 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, No. 15 of 1937 and No. 2 of 1941), Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, No. 43 of 1934 and No. 33 of 1938), Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936), and for sundry Contributions and Expenses in respect thereof, etc.

During the past 19 years the Oireachtas has passed 12 Acts and has confirmed two schemes awarding pensions, allowances and gratuities in respect of disability incurred and of services rendered by members of various military bodies covered by the general term "The Forces". The annual Estimate for the Army Pensions Vote such as that now before the House is simply the financial provision required to meet the cost of the awards made under the statutes and schemes so passed.

The total amount required during the next financial year to meet the awards and the expenses incurred in making the awards is £594,094, a net decrease on the previous year's figure of £57,540. The total figure is made up approximately as follows:—(1) Cost of awards (sub-heads G, H, K, L, O), £578,716; (2) cost of administration (sub-heads A, B, C, D, E, F), £11,096; (3) incidental expenses (sub-heads H, I, J, M and N), £4,282: making a total of £594,094.

It is quite obvious from a glance at the printed Estimate that the decrease of £57,540 is due to a decrease in awards under the Army Pensions and Military Service Pensions Acts, and that this decrease is offset to a small extent by an increase in awards under the Defence Forces pensions schemes. We are, in fact, now rapidly reaching the position in which awards under the Pension and Service Acts are becoming stabilised, but these under the schemes will increase from year to year.

The number of awards actually under payment on the basis of the printed Estimate is 12,391, and the cost thereof is approximately £484,093. The details of these, as divided between the different Acts and schemes, are as follows:—510 awards under the 1923 Act costing £29,155; 219 awards under the 1927 Act costing £14,531; 567 awards under the 1932 Act costing £43,097; 242 awards under the 1937 Act costing £14,596; 36 awards under the 1936 Act costing £1,101; 3,138 awards under the 1924 Act costing £150,777; 7,592 awards under the 1934 Act costing £224,921; 2 awards under the 1941 Act costing £79; 85 awards under the schemes, £5,836; a total of 12,391 awards costing £484,093.

In addition to the awards already made, the Estimate makes provision for 1,484 new awards under the different Acts during the coming financial year at a cost of £32,971, or, if arrears be included, £144,945. Such arrears will not, of course, be a recurring item of expenditure, nor will a sum of £4,297 also provided in the Estimate for gratuities. What we have to face is that at the end of the financial year 1942-43 the recurring charge on the Exchequer will be a sum of £484,093, in respect of awards already made, and £32,971 for those which may be awarded during the year. This gives a gross recurring expenditure of £517,064 a year, but it will be reduced by casualties and abatements of pension in respect of receipts of public moneys by an estimated sum of £54,619, leaving a net recurring annual charge of £462,445.

In connection with the awards already actually made, it may not be without interest to explain that out of 15,271 applications received under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923-41, there have been to date 10,756 refusals and 4,175 awards. Under the 1924 Act, there were 13,549 applications, of which 3,855 succeeded. The number of applicants under the 1934 Act is 59,811. The work of administering the Act is nearing completion. We have provided in the present Estimate for 8,942 awards.

The machinery set up by the Oireachtas for making awards under the Acts which it has passed consists at present of two statutory bodies, the Military Service Registration Board and the Army Pensions Board for Disability Pensions, and the Referee and Advisory Committee for Service Pensions under the Act of 1934. All three bodies are nearing the completion of their work. The Military Service Registration Board is engaged almost exclusively on applications under the 1941 Act, and the financial provision for the board proceeds on the assumption that their services under that Act will be required for only three months of the financial year.

The Army Pensions Board is completing its examination of applicants under the 1937 Act, very few of whom have not been already "boarded," and during the financial year the board should be able to make much headway with applications under the 1941 Act.

In this connection it must be remembered that the board's scope and functions have been recently extended, and that in addition to their work under the Army Pensions Acts, they have now also to deal with applications made under various compensation schemes, such as those for the L.S.F., for air-raid victims and personnel and for injured séamen. The effect of this extension of its functions has led naturally to a slowing down of the board's work proper, the examination of Army pension applicants, but all things considered, the board has made considerable progress with that work during the past financial year.

As regards the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, the House will be glad to learn that the end of the task is now in sight. The Estimate proceeds on the basis that the Referee and interviewing officers will practically cease to function on the 31st March, 1942, that the advisory committee will be required for only four, and the administrative staff for only eight, months of the new financial year. These time-limits are, of course, only provisional, but there is reasonable hope that the present financial year will see the work under this Act completed.

Mr. Hurley

I should like to know from the Minister what exactly is the reason for the decrease from £505,000 in 1941-42 to £461,000 in 1942-43 in military service pensions. I take it that these are pensions awarded under the 1934 Act. I am very pleased to hear that the investigations and inquiries into the 59,811 applications under the 1934 Act are nearing completion. I understood the Minister to say that the Referee and investigating officers will finish their labours on the 31st of this month. Where you had so many applicants and only 8,942 awards—I use "only" in a comparative sense— you are bound to have a good deal of dissatisfaction. Cases have been brought to my notice, and I am sure to the notice of many Deputies, concerning details of that dissatisfaction. I put some of them before the Minister. In some cases, there may be reason for the dissatisfaction and, in others, there may not. I should like the Minister to say what the guiding principle has been with regard to the granting of military service awards under the Act of 1934. What conditions were laid down by the Referee and the investigating officers which entitled applicants to come within the provisions of the Act and the absence of which disqualified applicants? That is a very important point, because dissatisfaction exists in many parts of the country.

Local people know pretty well the military records of the various applicants and are fairly keen judges of the correctness, or otherwise, of the decisions. We hear complaints from one man that so and so got so much and that the service of the complainant was better but he got nothing, or less than his friend. Those comparisons are being made. To clear up matters, I should like the Minister to state what rule guided the Referee, who was, I suppose, the final arbiter in arriving at a decision. That information should be given to the House. I am not saying that the dissatisfaction which has been caused is warranted, but it would be right that we should know the guiding principle, for our own information and the information of the public. I have heard of cases where the people who were verifying or certifying had no experience of the engagements themselves. They were supposed to testify as to whether applicants took part in those engagements or not. If that is true, there is bound to be a certain amount of injustice in the award of these pensions.

Local people have pointed to discrepancies in awards made to applicants in their own localities. Often-times, these people have had experience of the different phases of the fight and the local gossip is fairly authentic. I put these points to the Minister for information's sake.

On page 321 of the Estimates we have a list of pensions payable under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 and 1940. I do not think that they are very generous. The widows of three privates get £85 a year between them—roughly 10/- a week. That is not a very generous allowance. I take it that these are pensions for loss of the fathers. Is there a definite scale laid down by regulation regarding the pensions of widows and orphans of deceased soldiers, or what principle is adopted? Some of the pensions are very meagre when one contrasts them with the pensions granted under the 1934 Act, some of the recipients of which have a very good way of living otherwise. I think there has been little regard to the standard of values. The children also receive small amounts— £15 in one case. That would not go very far in rearing and educating a child deprived of its father. Is there a scale for these pensions, and what is the amount, having regard to the years of service?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister rather surprised me when he said that the work of the Pensions Board was practically completed. Judging by the number of persons who have approached me, it seems that the results have not been communicated, so far, to a considerable number of applicants. I agree with Deputy Hurley—I would go a good deal further than he did—in his comments upon the dissatisfaction which exists regarding the way in which these pensions have been awarded. I agree, too, that local people do know precisely the persons who were engaged in certain activities. I am told, on all sides, that a number of persons who did no work of any kind at that time are enjoying pensions and, on the other hand, that persons who, certainly, come within the scheme have been denied pensions. That seems to be because in every area certain persons—not always the persons most to be relied upon—were chosen as the only source of evidence upon which the Pensions Board would act. Sometimes, the officer in command of an operation might say that an applicant served under him in that operation, but his report would be entirely and completely ignored. I do think that no scheme has given more complete dissatisfaction than this scheme. No regular records were kept of the persons engaged in certain activities and that information could not be very easily ascertained. But I believe that a much better approximation to the facts, and a greater approximation to the value of the service done, could have been made than was made. If justice were to be done under this pensions scheme, most of those cases would have to be reconsidered by some other tribunal. That is, judging from what I have been told in my constituency and the complaints I have got from persons in that constituency.

I hasten to say that the complaints I received in my constituency have not been entirely confined to persons who agree with me in politics. I do not think that it would be practicable to have a revisory committee set up to deal with this matter but I do hope that, if we are ever unfortunate enough again to have a pensions scheme of this type, a much better method of awarding the pensions will be devised than the method adopted in this case.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I do not think that there is any possibility of getting Deputies to agree that this pensions scheme has been carried out to their satisfaction. I do not think that anything gives me more worry than meeting Deputies and arguing with them as to the rights and wrongs of the awards. I have no more to say to the decisions in respect of awards than any other Deputy. That is well known. The Act states that the Referee's decision shall be final, conclusive and binding. There is no way of getting outside that.

I have on several occasions, when I met members of the Pensions Committee, availed of the opportunity to put different points to them. I did that merely for the purpose of securing information. I have been assured by those gentlemen that everything possible that could be done to help the applicant to make his case successfully has been done by the group of officers who are known as the examining officers, and I do believe that that is true. Some of those men are men akin to the applicants. They have had service with the I.R.A. in the old days, and their sympathies, I am almost certain, would be with the applicant. They have assured me that, on several occasions, when they had an applicant who they believed was a good and efficient volunteer, from the point of view of being always at the disposal of his commanding officers, they tried to induce him to give such evidence as would secure a successful decision in the case. The men are naturally on oath, and they are not prepared to say that they did things that would give them active service. They make the best possible case they can, they say they threw up barricades, that they scouted areas before ambushes, that they took arms from men on ambushes and hid them, and they give a dozen and one other things of a type which, in the opinion of the Referee, does not constitute active service and for that reason these men, while very good volunteers, unfortunately do not come within the scope of the Act from the point of view of active service.

There is nothing that I know of that I can do, other than amending the Act —and the Government is not prepared to do that—which would alter the present state of affairs. The board has done good work in getting over a tremendously difficult job. They have examined practically 60,000 application forms and searched through them for evidence of active service. Where they found no such evidence, they put them aside and left them there for a later date. This outflow of non-service notices which began some time ago, is causing, naturally, an amount of dissatisfaction among the individuals who are getting them, and causing a tremendous amount of perturbation to Deputies and myself, as a result of the representations we receive. However, there is nothing that I can do or that Deputies can do, and the only way to face up to the situation is to state plainly that the Referee, who has worked strictly, fearlessly and honestly within the Act, is the only man who can decide the issue. There is no use in my attempting, or in Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney or anyone else attempting, to decide as between the service one man gave and that which another man gave. There must be some difference, when the Referee decides that there is a difference. After all, he has at his disposal confidential documents; he has the confidential reports of the verifying officers. Whatever the verifying officers may say to individuals whom they may have to contact, it is on the report which they make to the Referee that the Referee must decide the issue. I am satisfied that that is being done honestly and conscientiously.

Deputy Hurley was anxious to know the reason for the decrease of £57,540. That is due to the fact that there were not so many pensions awarded in that particular period.

In regard to the question of soldiers' wives, if an officer or soldier is killed on duty the widows and orphans are covered by the Army Pensions Acts. If an officer dies in the Army his widow and children are covered by the Defence Forces Scheme; but, in the case of a soldier, the widow and children are covered by the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund.

Mr. Hurley

We are told that, in order to qualify under the 1934 Act the applicant should have taken part in a major engagement within the pre-truce period—November, 1920, to July, 1921, or something like that. Was that a sine qua non for an award? We are told that that was one of the conditions: if you had not that, you were ruled out immediately; if you had, you were entitled to an award. In other words, there must have been some definite principle which guided the Referee in making awards under the Act. Is the Minister aware what that principle was, or will he tell us?

Mr. Traynor

No, I have not been made aware of what it is, but I know the Referee has made awards to people who have not been in major engagements—in fact, they had no engagements of any description; but, by reason of the fact that they were certified by the verifying officers and brigade committees as being what was described as "key-men", they have been granted awards. There is a large number of individuals of that type in receipt of Army service pensions at the present moment. Such men were kept in the background for some particular purpose: it may have been as intelligence officer, and the desirability of keeping the work he was doing secret—very often it was not known to some of his colleagues. The verifying officers happened to be in possession of that knowledge, and were prepared to verify on oath that this particular individual gave that type of service, and it is true to say that there are numbers of such persons in receipt of pensions.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1942