Running right through Deputy General MacEoin's speech was a suggestion in relation to the Referee. There might be some substance in his remarks were the rehearings on the basis of a rehearing by way of appeal. As I understand the position, this reopening provision was not brought in on the basis that there was any deficiency in the hearing or the decision arrived at. The Deputy and others were very free in their comments in regard to the fairness and efficiency of all those concerned. I understand that the position was that new facts or new evidence had become available, facts and evidence which were not available to the applicant in the first instance thereby depriving him of the opportunity of presenting his case properly and precluding him by the terms of the statute from having his case dealt with again when he was in a position to plead it. I think that is the basis upon which the provisions in relation to reopening were put before us and the basis upon which the subsequent steps were taken. If that is so, there is no substance in the objections that have been made by Deputy General MacEoin. There is nothing prejudicial in having a man hear a case or hear new evidence. In fact it is perhaps that very man who will be most likely to give the case the most sympathetic consideration. I do not think there is a great deal in the Deputy's point.
The question of abatement and special allowances has been raised. One does feel on examination that the advantage to the State in relation to abatement is not in fact as great as purely theoretical considerations might lead one to believe. I am wondering whether, when everything is weighted up, the adjustment sought by and large is not more expensive for the State than the present arrangement. I know that Deputy Colley and others are ready to deal with these matters. They have much more detailed knowledge of them than I have and will probably deal with them far more competently so I shall leave the matter to their expert understanding.
I want now to raise a matter under the heading of Army Pensions, though in its essence and nature it is more a question of insurance really. I think it is time that we considered making adequate provision for personnel who are killed in the discharge of their duties in the Army under circumstances, to use the phrase in the Workmen's Compensation Act, "arising out of and in the course of their employment". In that respect the State appears to lag behind the times. In many big industries to-day there are insurance schemes for employees. In the case of the Army there is no adequate provision. I am reminded of a very bad accident that occurred here by reading about one to-day in England. Consider the case of a soldier killed in the course of his training in the use of explosives. That is a very peculiar and special risk of his employment which operates in such a way as to make his own personal insurance a matter of some little difficulty. The fact that such an accident only happens rarely is no argument for not doing anything about it. Indeed, it should be a very strong argument for the State doing something since the potential commitment will be relatively small.
At the outset, I want to make it quite clear that I think the matter of adequate insurance of military personnel in the restricted sense of meeting that liability in relation to a fatal accident in the course of their duty should be covered. In the case of the Air Corps, there is a specific need for that. The present provisions are completely inadequate. They may be adequate if one regards them merely as some kind of compensation, but when one considers the situation that has to be met the position is very unsatisfactory. Fortunately, the number of cases is relatively few and the potential burden on the State is not likely to be great. Air Force accidents would probably provide the greater bulk of the cases in which compensation would have to be paid in peace time. The widow of an Air Force officer receives a pension of £90 a year with an allowance of £16 for each child up to the age of 16 years. There are certain provisions for education.
One asks oneself: what is the position of such a widow? Very often these widows are young. We have one very tragic case of a widow with a number of children who finds herself in this dilemma—I do not want to refer to anyone personally, but we have an example—that she must provide herself with an income of a size sufficient to allow her to rear her family. In order to do that, she must go out and earn not only enough to rear her family, but also sufficient to pay someone to mind her children while she is earning. Whatever arguments may be made in regard to pensions, this is not a question of a pension. It is a question of insurance really. It is a question of somebody killed off early in his career and leaving dependents. It is not a question of somebody having served through and getting a pension, but of somebody being killed and of other people being left destitute. It is primarily a question, therefore, of insurance.
Now, on the question of the amounts, can anybody seriously suggest that £16 per child is going to support a child? I ask the Deputies to face that from the point of view in which I have already put it. The widow has either to go out and earn not only enough for her family, but enough to pay somebody to mind the family while she is earning, or else she will need to have an income to enable her to rear the family, and if it is a family of young children, to give them the care and upbringing to which they are entitled, and which they would have had if their father had not been killed in the service of the State. I had tried to get figures for the support of children in public institutions. I have been informed recently that it may be possible to get that figure. In any event, it is considerably in excess of the figure on which it is possible to support a child, even where there is the benefit of pooling overheads for a number of children. There is also an indicator in the income-tax allowance granted for children. But, by any yardstick, the £16 is certainly too little.
The suggestion which I would make to the Minister, apart from the widow herself who is entitled to consideration, is that the allowance for supporting the children should be considerably increased. That proposal has the merit also of adjusting the expenses involved according to the burden. I know the answer will be made, why did they not insure? There will be the suggestion, in the case of the Air Corps, that flying pay was meant to provide insurance. The Minister gave me a number of answers to some questions in respect of proficiency in flying pay. I do not want to detain the House now, but I have pleaded with the Minister already in this matter. He is not unsympathetic by any means. It is unnecessary for me to go into detail except to say that flying pay is in every way a matter of proficiency, apart from the risk to the person concerned. Quite apart from provision for the family, it is straining it and wrong historically to suggest that it was meant to be a provision to allow them to insure. I know of one case during the emergency where risk pay was given to personnel who were engaged on work which carried certain personal risks. There was no suggestion whatever that that was for insurance. The point made was "we cannot ask men to take these extra risks to themselves, over and above the risks inherent in their ordinary duty unless we compensate them for them". That is the basis on which this pay was given. I think it is simply case-making to suggest that flying pay is in the nature of risk pay. One can stand over the case that a man in peace time, in the course of his profession in the Army, is taking a greater risk than his comrades in other categories, and therefore, is entitled to compensation in regard to his own personal risk quite apart from the insurance question. In so far as there is any question of risk in flying pay, I think it must be equated in that way.
Furthermore, there is another element in it, that it is sometimes forgotten by the official suggestion that flying pay and similar qualification pay should be in the nature of risk pay, flying pay particularly. One of the basis upon which officers in certain categories, including the flying corps, were given additional pay was by virtue of the fact that they were specialists in the corps, and that a limited number would be virtually confined to that corps for the duration of their Army career, and so would not have the same advantages in the race for promotion as they would have in other corps where there would be a wider number of vacancies. From one point of view, that is about the only basis upon which you can justify pay of that nature, because, in fact, the General Staff officer, the infantry officer, the cavalry officer and the artillery officer are all professional specialists. When one looks at it in that way, there is very little basis for paying the ordnance officer or the flying officer additional pay. The reason for paying them is because the general service officer has a wider field and, on the odds, better chances of promotion. A higher number of vacancies are available to him than to the others.
I have dealt with this at length. I anticipated that one answer made would be that flying pay is meant to cover insurance, and that that is what it is given for. I would go so far as to say that it was given for no such purpose and should not be so regarded. The next thing that is suggested is that the total amount of the remuneration of officers in that category nowadays when compared with certain civilian employment, is reasonably good, and that such officers should be expected adequately to insure themselves, just as the prudent civilian would, and that if they do not, and fail their responsibility, it is just too bad for themselves and their families. The answer to that is that the person with whom the equation is made is not subject to the same risks. In other words, the risks which a civil servant or even an infantry or artillery officer of comparable salary runs are very different from the risks which are part of the duty of a flying officer, certainly under certain operational conditions, bad weather, and so on. The question of adequate insurance then is another story. I leave out the question of the actual risk. The question of how much and in how short a space of time he can provide for himself comes in, and I think a strong case has to be made, particularly when one has regard to the following fact into which I have made some inquiries personally; I will not say that an officer flying in the Air Crops is uninsurable, but the premiums are prohibitive. He can insure himself, yes, excluding an accident of that nature, but that is the type of accident that is involved. He can certainly get insurance of that nature excluding this particular risk, but if this risk is included the premium is absolutely prohibitive. That is why, I think, the State should do in one way or the other what big air companies do and what, I understand, Aer Lingus does, that is, provide a form of insurance for the personnel who are running this risk and a percentage of whom—fortunately a small percentage and, please God, an ever decreasing percentage—will, in fact, be cases for consideration afterwards. These air companies do make provision for their employees.
There is one comparison that could be made and I am not going to go any further than this. During a period of a little more than 12 months past, there have been two fatal accidents, one in the Army and one in an air line. It would be very interesting for the Minister to compare—and he should be readily able to get the figures—as to what benefits the dependents of the Army officer were entitled to and what benefits the dependents of the officer of the air line were entitled to. This is a case where the State should, in some form or other, insure its employees for that type of accident. I am strictly limiting it to that type of case where a man is killed in the course of or arising out of his employment. I would not seek to extend it any further. Whether it is done by way of pension, as is more or less provided at the moment, or whether it is done by means of some insurance scheme is really immaterial provided it is done.
There is at least one case, and it has been hanging for a long time, although it is not for want of attention in the Minister's Department; I certainly hasten to add that because I know it from personal knowledge and I know that the Minister himself has been interested in the case. However, the matter is still undecided and more than 12 months have passed since the accident. It would do a great deal for the morale of the Army and would be also something to the credit of the State if this matter could be speedily adjusted and adequate insurance in some form or other provided to cover cases of the nature to which I have referred. I would ask the Minister to take up that matter very vigorously without further delay.