Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Feb 1943

Vol. 89 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 64—Army Pensions.

I move:

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £102,400, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st 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.

The main cause of this Supplementary Estimate for the Army Pensions Vote 1942/43 is that the Department under-estimated the number of awards which would fall for payment during the year. In making this under-estimation, the Department was influenced by the fact that in recent financial years it had in framing its Estimates relied mainly on the output of awards as computed by the different statutory bodies concerned, and that this Estimate had been found by experience to be inaccurate, and had caused large Exchequer surrenders which were the cause of some comment. Thus in 1937/38 the surrender was £58,755; in 1938/39, £45,920; in 1939/40, £45,877; in 1940/41, £85,548; and in 1941/42, £68,195. To avoid such large surrenders, the Department in 1942/43 cut the figures furnished by the statutory bodies, and, by doing so, has now found that the money necessary to finance the awards made under the different Acts has been under-estimated to the extent of about £102,400.

How this sum is made up will be clear from the amounts set out under the different sub-heads of the Vote. Thus, under sub-head E, an additional sum of £450 is required to meet the salaries, wages and allowances of the referee and advisory committee. In introducing the annual Estimate for the Army Pensions Vote for the financial year 1942/43, it was stated:

"The Estimate proceeds on the basis that the referee and interviewing officers will practically cease to function on the 31st March, 1942, and that the advisory committee will be required for only four months and the administrative staff for only eight of the new financial year."

At the time it was distinctly stated that "these time limits were only provisional," and in point of fact the actual course of events has shown that our expectations were not realised. The interviewing officers were released from their duty with the committee at the end of March, 1942, and it was found possible to effect a reduction in the administrative staff of the committee, but it was found necessary to retain the services of the advisory committee itself and of portion of the staff during the whole of the financial year, so that we shall require a net sum of £450 more than originally anticipated to pay the salaries, wages and allowances of the committee for the financial year.

Under sub-head G, a further sum of £1,000 is required, because we have more applications than we anticipated would succeed for wound and disability pensions and gratuities under the Acts of 1927, 1932 and 1941. As regards the additional sum of £500 required under sub-head H for allowances and gratuities to dependents, that excess is mainly due to the fact that during the year we were able to clear off with the Department of Finance a number of applications for gratuities under the 1932 Act, which had been outstanding over a number of years in the past.

Hospital Treatment—sub-head J—is dependent entirely on the number of cases which the Army Pensions Board is able to handle, and they have dealt with more cases and their investigations have in some cases taken a longer time than we expected. Here the amount required will be an additional £250.

Compared with the additional amount of £98,000 required under sub-head K in respect of military service pensions, the sums needed under the other sub-heads are relatively small, and, consequently, the chief cause of the Supplementary Estimate lies in this particular sub-head. The under-estimation here is due entirely to the fact that more awards than we thought probable when the annual Estimate was framed in December, 1941, were actually made during the financial year 1942/43. When the Estimate for 1942/43 was framed, there were under payment in respect of the 1924 and 1934 Acts no less than 10,730 pensions, and the Department prepared its budget on the basis that about 1,130 fresh awards, mainly under the 1934 Act, would be made between December, 1941, and March, 1943, especially in view of the large surpluses which had accrued in previous years in respect of this particular sub-head. This would give 11,860 pensions by the end of the financial year 1942/43. The forecast, however, proved to be inaccurate, because at the end of December there were 12,918 awards actually under payment, and, in addition, we had received from the referee 912 additional favourable reports.

For one reason or another not all of these reports will fall for payment before the end of March. Some of the grantees are abroad and may not be able to complete all the necessary formalities before the end of the year, and even in the case of grantees living at home, we find that delays occur in acknowledging the receipt of certificates and in completing the formalities necessary to payment. Taking the various factors of delay into consideration, we consider that of the 912 awards mentioned, only about 612 will fall as a charge to the Vote during the year, so that this Supplementary Estimate proceeds on the assumption that on the 31st March, 1943, there will be 13,530 awards in course of payment. In this connection, it must be remembered that each new award carries with it arrears of pension back to the 1st October, 1934

Depending as it does on the retirement of officers and the discharge of other ranks from the Army, it is not easy in the absence or suspension of regulations dealing with ages of retirement, to estimate with accuracy requirements under sub-head L of the Vote which carries the cost of pensions and gratuities under the Defence Forces pensions schemes granted in respect of service to personnel of the forces. The annual Estimate for 1942/43 provided for about 110 pensions and that Estimate proved accurate for at the end of December, 1942, there were 102 under pay and there have been several other cases in which pensions will be payable since that date. In the matter of gratuities, however, our forecast was inaccurate because against a provision of £3,450 we have already spent £3,700, and in addition we have already on hands other cases which will cost about £850.

Finally, sub-head M deals with the expenses of applicants and of witnesses attending for examination before the statutory bodies administering the different Acts, and it is, therefore, closely connected with the work of these bodies. The amount now required under this sub-head is nearly double the original estimate of £3,000, and is mainly due to the increased activities already described of the referee and advisory committee. On 31st December, 1942, the charge under this sub-head was already £5,083, due to the fact that efforts were being made to dispose of all applications under the 1934 Act, and that, in consequence, it was necessary to have more frequent conferences with verifying officers than had been originally anticipated.

When these 13,443 cases have been dealt with, how many cases will remain to be dealt with?

There are a considerable number, although I cannot give the actual figure. I think the referee has to deal with only something like 300 cases, but there are a large number of appeals. We cannot say how many appeals will be pressed, but at present the appeals number 15,000 or 20,000. I should say that the majority of them will scarcely result in any alteration, by reason of the fact that there is no additional evidence of the type required being forwarded.

So that any case that will come under review after these have been disposed of will only be under review on appeal, as the original examination will have taken place?

I think that would be a fair statement of the case.

Mr. Lynch

When does the Minister think the work of the board will be concluded? He mentioned that it was calculated that the advisory committee would only have been required for a portion of this financial year, that they would have finished their work by 31st December. What is the new estimate as to when the work will be finished? I should also like to ask if the work could have been expedited in any way if the referee had remained whole-time on the job. I am not finding any fault with anything he has done. I think he has done his work as well as could be expected. But, if the referee had continued at the work, instead of resuming his ordinary work, would it have expedited matters? I think it is desirable that these cases should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It is nearly nine years now since the Act was passed, and it is a fairly long time to have persons waiting, who eventually prove to be entitled to something under this Act, for a decision in their cases. I think it would expedite the matter if the referee were asked to take on the work whole-time and drop his work in the Circuit Court.

There is another point which may not be strictly relevant to this Estimate. There is some suggestion that there is to be a new Bill to amend the law relating to Army pensions so as to bring in those persons who joined the Army and the Defence Forces generally in emergency services since 1st September, 1939. I should like to know when the Minister expects to be able to introduce the Bill dealing with that matter, or if it is a fact that such a Bill is contemplated.

Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Lynch and the Minister have an intimate knowledge of the events during the period from 1917 on to 1924. Do they believe that during that time 15,000 men bore arms on active service in this country against the British or in the civil war?

If the Deputy wants my opinion, he can read my remarks when the Bill was introduced dealing with these pensions.

I have often read the statements of leading participants in that period of activity who said that at no time was there more than a microscopic handful of men bearing arms, and it was often commented on with admiration that they were able to keep at bay the very large forces massed against them. But it now appears through the medium of this pension legislation that there was a large standing army in this country of 15,000 men on active service, with an additional body of 20,000 men who thought they were on active service.

I do not think the Deputy has looked up the Estimate and tried to understand what it is for.

I listened to the Minister, and he says that he has awarded 13,500 pensions for service in the Civil War period and in the other war period.

Are there more pensions? I must say that I heard with amazement that the Minister is satisfied that there was actually a standing army of 15,000 men bearing arms—that is really 15 battalions of soldiers— that these were actually bearing arms, and that there were a further 20,000 who thought they were bearing arms. Of course, I was not in sympathy with the movement, and therefore was not in a position to know what was going on. But I knew a great many men who were in it, and none of them ever suggested to me at any time that they thought there was a number of young men approximating to 15,000, or that there were 15 battalions in the field. I doubt if any Deputy interested at any time thought that he could muster 1,000 men to march behind him. I doubt if Deputy Mulcahy at any time during his activities in Dublin, or in any other part of the country, thought he could muster 1,000 of an army.

What year is the Deputy speaking of?

I am talking of what the Minister said, that he awarded 13,500 pensions, and that there are more to be awarded.

What year is the Deputy speaking of?

I am talking about the Minister's speech. Were there at any time in the whole of the period before the Civil War and during the Civil War 1,000 men engaged?

If the Deputy is addressing that question to me, I cannot answer it except it refers to a particular year.

Do these 35,000 include the members of the regular Army? I thought they did not.

Mr. Lynch

They do, but they had both services. They must have pre-Truce service and service in the National Army or in the Civil War.

I was never aware that there were 15,000 men in the field prior to the evacuation of this country by the British. It is a matter worthy of comment that it now emerges that there were 15,000 men bearing arms and active in the field arrayed against the British and 20,000 who thought they were. I do not think that that is known to anybody but the referee and the applicants for pensions. Historians must revise the story of that dramatic period in our history. They must revise the tale which has so often been told of a small band of men who conducted this extraordinary guerilla campaign against the forces of the British Empire. It was not a small guerilla band, but a very fine standing Army of between 15,000 and 20,000, who acted in such a way as to enable them to speak of active service in a sense which entitles them to receive a life pension hereafter from the State. That is a remarkable incident, and I trust that no historian writing the story of this country will overlook it when the history of Ireland comes to be written. It is very remarkable that we raised a standing Army of 20,000 men. To conceal this great Army and to conceal the immense armament of this Army seems to have been remarkable. That makes this Estimate of peculiar importance not only for our own time but for posterity to note.

Apart from that, I should like to ask for information analogous to that sought by Deputy Lynch. Does the Minister intend to introduce an amending Bill to the military pensions code and, if so, in that Bill is it his intention to make provision for the exceptional circumstances of the widowed mother of the officer who was killed in the disaster at Glenmalure? I think there was a proposal at one time to give her the same concession, broadly speaking, as would be enjoyed by the widow of a deceased officer who died in the tragic circumstances attending on the death of the officer concerned. If that course were pursued, it would be a reasonable one and I believe would have the support of every Deputy. It would be a comfort to the lady in question and to her family and friends if the Minister felt free to say that it was his intention to deal with that matter in the new legislation.

Would the Minister say whether he has received complaints from units of the Dublin Brigade with regard to applicants who have been rejected as persons to whom the Act does not apply, without these people having had the opportunity of appearing before the board? I, personally know of a number of such cases, where people from the same units filled in the same kind of forms in exactly the same way, and where some people were admitted before the board and the claims of others were refused. I should like to know from the Minister whether, before the board finishes its activities, the claims of such men as I have mentioned would be readmitted.

I should like to join with Deputy McCann in regard to the case he has made, because I already made a similar case with regard to men who had exactly the same evidence as to their activities, and some of these claims were admitted while others were not. I should like to emphasise that, because that kind of thing does not make for harmony or peace in the country. A lot of trouble is caused in the case of men, coming from the same unit and, presumably, with the same record of service, when one person is awarded a pension or gratuity and the other is not. I think that it is a very serious matter.

Apart from that, however, I was particularly interested in Deputy Lynch's suggestion, in connection with an alteration in the existing law, so far as concerns men serving in the present Army—men, perhaps, who had been on the Reserve and who, possibly, as a result of the present emergency were called up, and who died while in the Army, leaving their widows and children without any compensation.

I would suggest that if the Minister is thinking of bringing in amending legislation, he should bear such cases in mind, and I am sure that, if he were to do so, every Party in the House would support him. I have in mind at the moment, for instance, the case of a Captain in the Army who had been serving since 1922. He was on the reserve of officers, and came up each year for training. He died suddenly in the Curragh, leaving a wife and six children, but the reply of the Department of Defence to communications that have been sent is that no gratuity or pension can be paid in his case. I think that that is a thing we should not stand over, and if the Minister is proposing to bring in legislation dealing with such cases, I am sure that everybody in the House would back him. If he does bring in such legislation, I trust that it will be made retrospective, so that the widows and children of such people as those to whom I have referred will be provided for. I hope that the proposed legislation will be brought in speedily, and I am sure that the Minister would have the backing of the whole House.

Mr. Brennan

Before the Minister concludes, I wish to say that it has always been a marvel and a puzzle to me to know how this board works. Just like other Deputies who have spoken on this matter, I have known men from the same unit and the same district, with the same record of service, who have been treated in different ways. For instance, men have shown me a summons to attend in Dublin before the board on a particular day, while other men, belonging to the same units and districts and with the same record of service, were not sent for. With regard to the other point that was made by Deputy Keyes— referring to widows or dependents of men who died while on service in the Army—I put a question down here last November with regard to a Mrs. Quinn, whose husband died while on service, and I got a reply to the effect that provision was being made for her; but I got a letter this morning from Mrs. Quinn which was to the effect that she had filled up all the necessary forms and papers last November, but had received no reply from the Department since then. This is the month of February, but nothing has been done for this unfortunate woman and her children since last November. I suggest that that is certainly a very poor recompense for such people.

I have been in communication with the Department of Defence in connection with a case in the County Cavan. The Minister, I think, knows of the case. It was that of a man who was adjudged by the Army doctors as unfit for duty on account of ill-health. The person concerned is quite all right now and willing to rejoin the Army, but they do not want to allow him back.

Is that matter not outside the scope of this Army Pensions Vote?

Yes, Sir, but there was the question here of the disagreement between doctors, and I suggest that if the Minister or his Department cannot decide to take this man back into the Army, the question would arise as to whether he would be entitled to a pension or compensation of some kind.

Have the Army doctors declared him to be unfit?

Yes, he was pronounced unfit by the Army doctors, but he went before a specialist, who disagreed with that opinion and who says that he is quite fit now. If that is so, it leaves the opinion of the Army doctors open to question. This man is willing to rejoin the Army, and I would ask the Minister to give very careful consideration to the matter because, if he is not fit to rejoin, then the question of compensation will come up.

He cannot have it both ways.

No, but if he is fit to rejoin, he should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, he should be awarded some compensation.

The Minister, to-day, in reply to a question, indicated that he was about to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter.

We have already had three Deputies, led by Deputy Dillon, discussing legislation, which is not permitted in a debate on an Estimate. However, since other Deputies have discussed the proposed legislation, I do not wish to deter the Deputy from referring to it.

It was not started by me, Sir, but by Deputy Lynch.

That is so. I shall not preclude Deputy Corish from a brief reference.

I understood the Minister to say that he was going to introduce a Bill dealing with cases of illness or wounds contracted by soldiers during their period of service, and I think he should go further than that. During the Black-and-Tan War, men contracted very severe illness as a result of wettings that they got, and so on, and I would ask the Minister to consider that angle.

In reply to various queries that have been made with regard to the amendment of the Army Pensions Acts, which many Deputies are anxious about, and which I, also, am anxious about, a White Paper has now been prepared, and I shall have it ready for next week, and expect to be able to introduce the Bill the following week. It applies to wounds or illness due to service.

I do not want Deputies to get the idea that this is going to be the cure-all of all the queries that are put from time to time. I think it is a reasonably good Act, that it will meet very many of the requirements which should have been met before this, and it will be retrospective to the beginning of the emergency. What Deputy Corish has in mind is a totally different thing and that is being dealt with at the present time through the Army Disability Pensions Act. Any member of the forces, in accordance with the Act, who can prove that he is suffering from a disease or from wounds received during either the Black and Tan War or the Civil War, or from disease attributable to service during these periods is entitled to go before that particular pensions board, and if he can satisfy the board that his disease is attributable to service, he is granted a pension.

On a point of information, may I ask the Minister if he contemplates giving compensation to the widow and orphans of a man who has died from natural causes during service with the Army, apart from wounds or accidents? I am thinking of the case of a man who died suddenly, from natural causes, while on service with the Army.

The proposed amendments will operate as from the beginning of the emergency. They will apply to every man in the Army at the present time, but it is from the beginning of the emergency only.

Before the Minister goes away from that, I would like to point out that I have submitted cases to his Department. In one case two certificates from medical men were submitted saying that the man had contracted a certain disease in consequence of his service in the Army, and the application was turned down.

It must be proved to the satisfaction of the board that the disease was attributable to service.

Surely, two medical certificates ought to prove it.

An ordinary medical certificate will not prove it to the satisfaction of the board. The board has its own machinery for investigating the whole question of the disease, wound, or injury, and if that machinery satisfies the Pensions Board there will be no question whatever of a man not securing what he is entitled to.

Will the Dundalk case he dealt with—the case of the widowed mother of an officer who was killed?

It will be included. The cases of all the men in the Glen of Imaal disaster will be included also. For Deputy Dillon's information, there were 72,000 applicants for pension certificates. I have no doubt that, while 72,000 applicants could not prove the type of active service the referee demands, there were, at some time or another, passing through the Volunteer movement 72,000 people who were prepared, if given the opportunity, to fight but that opportunity, naturally, did not fall to a large number. As I mentioned, there are already over 13,000 people in receipt of pensions and that number will be added to, not perhaps very considerably, but possibly by 100 or more, and it will leave out a large number of men who are very dissatisfied and about whom Deputies in this House are continuously making representations and who are regarded by the board as border-line cases. The board has had to set up a standard. The standard is interpreted by the board and by the referee. He is the final judge in all this thing and if he is not satisfied that the type of service which the applicant has given is the type of service which he demands then, unfortunately for the applicant, he is turned down. I cannot do anything about that and no other Deputy can do anything about it. There is only one way in which he can have his case reopened after his 21 days' appeal has been dealt with and that is by the submission of additional evidence which was not available at the time of the first hearing and which could not have been made available. In no other circumstances that I know of can the case be reopened. As far as I know, the wording of the Act rules out the referee himself from reopening the case. The wording of the Act, I think, is that the decision of the referee shall be final, conclusive and binding on all persons and tribunals whatsoever. I believe that that includes even the referee.

On that point, may I ask the Minister, when the evidence of the verifying officers from a particular brigade or area is identical in two cases and the awards are different, can additional evidence be given? The evidence is the same in both cases but in one case a pension is awarded and in the other case the applicant is disqualified although there was the same certification from the officers in the area. What is the alternative machinery in a case of that kind? I have two cases in mind at the moment.

Dozens of cases of that type have been brought to my attention. I have had them brought to the notice of the secretary to the referee and in practically every case he has satisfied me that the suggestion that the two types of service were identical is not correct. The files are confidential to the referee. I cannot see the files and I have to accept the word of the secretary—and I do accept it— when he tells me that what the Deputy has been informed is not correct. It seems to me to be a pretty general complaint that two men have been in the movement side by side, whose services appear to have been identical but whose awards are different. In the cases I have gone into, I must certainly admit, from what I have been told by the secretary to the referee, that such is not the case and that the verifying officers when they go before the board and are giving evidence on oath must necessarily give statements of fact and the statements of fact show a large degree of differentiation.

If additional evidence is furnished, and if names of additional witnesses are given in support of fairly strong cases—such as I have seen on paper, at any rate—why is it that the additional witnesses are not brought before the board or the referee?

As far as I know, the referee is very anxious to hear everybody who will add anything to the case and who will help him to come to a just decision. When the referee arrives at a decision, he does not inform the applicant; he informs the Brigade Committee. I think he gives the Brigade Committee something like 28 days to come to a decision to make any further representations that they may desire to make on behalf of the applicant whom he is turning down. At the end of 28 days, if the referee does not hear from this committee, he makes his decision, and he then gives 21 days' notice to the applicant. He informs him that he is not a person to whom the Act applies, and he gives him 21 days in which he may appeal. In appealing he must produce evidence —it is commonsense—in addition to the evidence he has already submitted to the referee, because if he does not produce additional evidence it does not alter the referee's decision. The evidence which he may then submit to the referee may not be sufficient to convince the referee that he is a person to whom the Act should apply by reason of the fact that the definition of active service is not met. After that decision has been notified to the applicant, the applicant can still appeal to the Minister provided he can produce evidence of a type which will satisfy the Minister that he is entitled to service, and that the type of evidence is not such as he was able to produce at the time of the first hearing. It must be additional evidence which was not available on the occasion of the first hearing.

I am speaking now of one which I sent to the Minister within the last week in which additional evidence is undoubtedly forthcoming. The names of the additional witnesses were given, one being an Army colonel, and another a superintendent in the Guards. If such cases are to be properly investigated, since additional evidence is forthcoming, why is it that the additional witnesses are not called before the court of the referee to support the evidence?

If a case has been decided, then it is out of the referee's hands. As I mentioned a few moments ago, if the referee has given his decision, and has notified the Minister that the person mentioned is not a person to whom the Act applies, then there is no way in which that applicant can have his case reopened except through the appeal to the Minister.

I know that.

If the case that the Deputy mentions is one in which a decision has been given, and if the Deputy is making representations either to me or to the referee to have this man heard, that cannot be done. That can only be done through an appeal. The individual concerned should have brought those witnesses forward while his case was at hearing. The referee would then have granted all possible facilities to those people to give whatever evidence they possess. If the evidence that the Deputy suggests those people can give comes within the term "additional evidence," and if that is sent to me, I will have it considered from the point of view of seeing whether in fact it is additional evidence, and whether the case can be reopened. It is only on these grounds that that can be done.

Is it not true that if such men send forward additional evidence in writing to the Minister, and if it is considered satisfactory, the case will be reopened?

What the Deputy says has been done in the case I have mentioned, but the people who have given this additional evidence in writing have not been called upon to come forward and support it orally.

Deputies must remember that it is the referee who must be the judge of what is additional evidence, because, as I have already mentioned, the files are confidential to him. He must compare what is sent into him, what is regarded by the applicant as additional evidence, with the file which he has, and upon which his decision was made. As far as I can see, the referee has been fairly generous in reopening cases. In fact, hundreds of such cases have been reopened, but the referee must be satisfied beyond yea or may that this is, in fact, additional evidence before he notifies me of the fact that, in his opinion, it is additional evidence. If he notifies me of the fact, then I instruct him, by an endorsement on the file, to reopen and review the case.

That means that the referee is the final arbiter: that before the Minister has had an opportunity of considering the additional evidence, the referee decides whether or not he will admit it. If he decides that it is not additional evidence, then the Minister is not allowed to examine it. In that case the Minister is, so to speak, completely obliterated. We want to know in what way the Minister can be approached directly in regard to this matter of additional evidence.

What is regarded as additional evidence must be submitted to the Minister. I read what is forwarded to me and, generally, I can make a fairly accurate surmise as to whether it is, in fact, additional evidence or not, because the applicant usually sends a copy of the form which he had already forwarded. I send that to the referee, and the secretary to the referee makes a comparison. There is no question whatever of their honesty. I have already said that hundreds of such cases have been reopened within the last couple of years. There is no question whatever but that if the evidence sent forward can, in any sense, be regarded as additional evidence, the case is reopened.

The Minister does not know whether it is additional evidence or not, because he has not seen the original file.

What the Deputy says is correct. I have stated twice already that the files are confidential to the referee.

Is the Minister aware that the standard set by the board for active service is more drastic now than it was up to 1938? In other words, a man, in order to qualify, must have taken part in at least two major engagements. Up to 1938, one major engagement was regarded as general service.

That statement is not correct. That is a fiction. The interpretation given to active service by the present referee is the same as the interpretation given to it by his predecessor. The question of major engagements does not arise here. The referee and the board decide what, in their opinion, was the amount of active service given by an applicant. If they are satisfied that it comes within the interpretation which they have settled for themselves, a service certificate is awarded, and there the matter ends.

What I mean to convey is that the present standard set by the board is far more drastic than it was say four years ago.

That is not correct. The standard has never altered.

That is, in so far as major engagements are concerned.

That is not correct. Deputies will have to realise that, in the beginning, the position was something like this. The various brigade committees were asked to send forward initially the best possible types of cases that were available. It stands to reason that, in the beginning, there were what were described by the men themselves as "stone-wall" cases, so that the question for the board to decide was, not whether those men were entitled to service, but what amount of service they were entitled to. Now the situation is different because the board have come to the type of case—the "borderline" case—that I mentioned a moment ago. The board have great difficulty in deciding whether the type of service that this "borderline" case has to its credit is, in fact, the type that will qualify for active service. The difficulty that exists in the minds of Deputies is, I think, due to this: that, in the early stages when dealing with this examination, the board had before them the type of case usually described as a "stone-wall" case. In such cases it was, presumably, easy for the board to come to a decision.

They knew from the beginning of their examination that the man was, in fact, the type of person to whom the Act applied. All they had to decide was the amount of the award they would make him. The suggestion that a new standard has been set is quite wrong; it is a figment of someone's imagination; it does not exist. The board is still carrying out its functions on the original standard. What has changed is the type of men who are coming before the board; the type of service possessed by people now coming before the board is not of the same standard as in the earlier days.

Is it not essential that men must have been in some major engagement in order to qualify?

They must prove that they were on active service.

I have in mind certain cases, and I know the men were on active service for a number of years. The reason they are not getting pensions is because they were not engaged in any major affair. I know of cases where men were fully armed, and were within 200 or 300 yards, or perhaps less, of where a major engagement was in progress. They were as much in the engagement, one might say, as the men who actually took part in it, but yet they were disqualified because they were not regarded as taking part in the major affair.

At any rate, they have failed to convince the referee that they were engaged in the type of active service considered necessary to qualify. That is the only answer I can give in that connection. There were cases of men who were operating in outposts, or something of that nature, and on the same operation there were men who went into physical action against the enemy. These men have no difficulty in proving their cases, but the man who is on the outside acting merely as a sort of outpost, has so far failed to convince the referee that he is the type of person to whom the Act applies.

Is it reasonable so to differentiate between the armed men who are near the scene of action and the men actually taking part in the engagement?

Deputy Lynch was anxious to know when the hearing of appeals, and the work of the board generally, would conclude. The actual examination of applicants will conclude early this year. The appeal court is, of course, a more difficult thing to make any forecast in respect of, because there is a very large number of appeals and I do not quite know, and I am sure the board does not quite know, how many of these people will be prepared to press their claims to a final issue.

Does the Minister remember giving me an assurance that the work of this body would be finished last year?

I do remember that, but I think I also informed the Deputy that that did not include appeals. Is that not so?

The appeals are a difficult thing to judge. At any rate, we are within finishing distance. I understand there are about 300 cases still to be dealt with. Whatever estimate I gave, considering the difficulties that the board has been up against, I think it was a fairly accurate one. I would like to say to Deputy Brennan that the case of the lady he has in mind will possibly come under the new Bill, which I shall be introducing in the course of a week or two.

Mr. Brennan

I put down a question on this matter last November, and the Minister replied that a pension was granted to the lady's husband, who was then dead, and I was informed that payment would be made immediately. I received a letter from her which I read for the Minister to-day, and in that letter she states that she has not heard from the Minister's Department beyond receiving a form for signature.

If the Deputy will remind me of that case again I shall have it attended to.

Mr. Brennan

I certainly will.

Is it a fact that the cost of carrying out investigations over a period of eight years is approximately £250,000?

Does the Deputy mean in regard to the functions of the Advisory Board?

Is it a fact that the total cost of administering the 1934 Act has so far been £250,000?

I am not prepared to make a statement about that just now.

I am merely going on figures that the Minister gave me some time ago, plus the approximate cost since.

The Minister says he hopes to introduce a Bill in a week or two, the purpose of which will be to enable him to grant pensions to the widows and dependents of men killed on active service. When he is introducing that Bill, I should like the Minister to make provision for a substantial increase in the present pension rates allowed to disabled men.

That matter does not arise on this Estimate. The Deputy may discuss it when the Bill is introduced, but I fear he is out of order in raising it now.

Other Deputies were allowed to raise matters of that sort.

When he is introducing this Bill, perhaps the Minister will consider the desirability of commuting small pensions.

I appeal to the Minister to increase the present pensions rates substantially. I have in mind the explosion in the Glen of Imaal. Three of the men blinded there are now being well looked after at St. Dunstan's, in England, thanks to the good offices of the National Council of the Blind in Ireland, the goodness of our British neighbours, and the cooperation of the Minister. At the time of the explosion it was a scandalous thing when certain rates of pension were offered to those men. I think the offer was 26/- for a corporal and 30/- for a sergeant. Were it not for the good offices of the National Council of the Blind in Ireland and the goodness of our British neighbours, these men might still be living at home, blind and helpless.

I do not think the Deputy is in order in raising that matter on this Estimate.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion I have made? I understand the average pension is about £27 and there are quite a number of pensions of £10. If these small pensions were commuted, it might mean a very big reduction in pension costs.

The men Deputy Byrne referred to were being cared for by the Department of Defence all the time between the period of the accident and when they went to St. Dunstan's. They were very carefully looked after.

Will the Minister consider what Deputy Hickey has suggested—taking the right to himself to commute these small pensions?

I think it would be a very bad practice.

Where will you stop?

I think Deputy Cosgrave will admit that it is a "cod" having to bear the cost of the very large number of pensions of £6 16s. 8d. per year.

Where will you stop?

I would be prepared to leave that in the hands of the Deputy and the Minister.

If that had been done 20 years ago, what position would the men be in now? Will the Minister give some consideration to cases such as have been mentioned in questions to-day, cases of men who died because of some disorder contracted since they joined the Army and of others who had to be retired by reason of illness? Will he consider bringing in a special Vote to allow an ex gratia payment without prejudice to the validity of any claim? I am aware that in certain cases hardships have arisen by reason of the soldier or the members of his family having limited means. One can realise that in any firm where a man who has been employed for some years dies, they brush aside all those special considerations that would be borne in mind at another time. The State, which ought to be the best employer, by reason of regulations and enactments to which it has to pay attention is not in a position to make such a grant. The sum would not be considerable and in these cases where hardship has arisen a great deal of discomfort and unhappiness would be avoided if it were possible to give £10 in the case of a death or £10 in the case of illness pending the introduction of legislation.

I am afraid it would not be possible. The Deputy will appreciate the way in which a Department like mine is bound up by regulations and so on, which make it very difficult to handle a suggestion of that kind. We are making what we consider reasonably fair provision for these individuals, and any man who develops a disease or illness attributable to service of a type which removes him from the service will be entitled to a pension in accordance with the Act to be brought in. I think that is as far as we can go. It is very doubtful whether the Deputy's suggestion, that there should be a sum available from which a gratuity could easily be paid to an individual, would be workable.

My proposal would be something like this: That a sum of £1,000 be included in the Estimate for the year for ex gratia payments in the case of the death or disability of a soldier arising out of service. If the Minister wished, the sum so paid could be deducted from any future pension. There was a special Vote—I am speaking from my recollection of nearly 20 years ago—of something like £150,000 out of which gratuities were given to officers who were demobilised. I had a good deal to do with the administration of that sum. Special cases of hardship arose in that connection, and if there is a sum of money such as that available, it is possible to deal with these cases rapidly. It is not a very considerable amount, and I am quite sure that a private individual would make the provision.

I agree that it would be desirable, if it could be done, and I shall see if anything can be done in the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn