Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 57—Army Pensions (Resumed).

General MacEoin

This Estimate, moved by the Minister, is one that gives everybody in this House considerable difficulty. I regret that the Minister, in moving it, did not elaborate a little bit more on the administration of the Act itself, that he did not break down, as they are broken down in the Estimate, the amounts paid by the State under the various heads. In this Vote you have the pensions for the Regular Army personnel; you have the pensions for the widows and orphans of previous members of the Defence Forces; you have special allowances; you have military service pensions under the 1924 Act and under the 1934 Act. While it is clear from the Book of Estimates how the gross sum is made up, I think that, at the same time, the Minister should have given, in his opening statement, the various sums.

In addressing myself to the administration of this Vote it is not easy to keep strictly to the rules of order but I will do the best I can and avoid the question of policy. The Vote was not referred back. Therefore I am confined to rather narrow limits. First, let me say that I am not satisfied with the present system of awarding military service certificates. The Act of 1949 reopened a number of cases that had already been decided, and the Referee who had operated the Act until its close prior to 1949 is now the Referee operating again. I want it to be clearly understood that I have the highest regard and opinion of the Referee and that whatever I say is not to be taken as in any way reflecting upon him. But he is rehearing appeals from judgments that he himself has already given. He decided certain cases and he is now hearing appeals from his own decisions. That, in my opinion, is contrary to natural justice. I do not care how good he is or how impartial he may try to be, the fact that he is rehearing cases that he has already decided does, in my opinion, prejudice the claimants' chances and opportunities.

Therefore I suggest that in the administration of the Act a new Referee be appointed. The Government can take a judge off the bench to act as Referee and appoint a temporary judge while these cases are going on. In that way you would have a person of judicial standing in whom everybody would have confidence operating the Act. There would be a sense of fair play. At the moment, no matter how correctly the Referee may reject an application, if he rejected the same case before there is the feeling that the applicant did not get a fair do. I do not want to stress that any further except to say that I think the Government itself, the Minister, the applicants and everybody concerned, would be well served by having a change of Referee.

Time is passing on. It is now over 35 years since some of the episodes occurred which qualify persons for military service pensions. I am informed to-day that questions are being put to applicants which are very difficult to answer. For instance, I have been informed that an applicant has been asked when he said that such a thing happened, what sort of a day it was, was it a wet day or a dry day. I think that is straining the thing a bit too far. Again, I do not want to refer to or to belittle in any way what anybody did, but if you take Easter Week itself and asked an applicant what he did on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of that week it would be very difficult for him to answer. I venture to say, without disrespect, that if you were to ask the Taoiseach to-day who was in charge of Boland's Mills, what he did on Sunday, what he did exactly on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday he would find it extremely difficult to say, especially if he was on his oath. It would be almost impossible to answer that, while, of course, everybody knows he was there for the week. That, in itself, is supposed to be ample, but it is not. When you apply that principle to another person, to myself for instance, as to what I did on the 1st November, 1920, what I did on the 28th January, 1919, what sort of a day it was, while my memory is fairly good, just as good as anybody else's, I certainly do not know that. It is unreasonable to ask that. When the inter-Party Government re-established this board they decided to appoint a person as Referee who had a very wide and varied experience of all that period. They appointed the late Judge Art O'Connor as Referee.

I am sure everybody will agree that he was a person eminently suited to discharge the obligations put upon him. The Parliament here having failed to define "active service" or what would constitute active service, when he proceeded to discharge these duties he drew up a set of rules which in his opinion was a definition of active service. Unfortunately, before he was able to operate them, he passed away from us. I am aware that his successor adopted these rules as to what would constitute active service. In a survey at the time they came to the conclusion, having looked over a number of the appeals and of the original forms, that so many thousand people would qualify, that there was a certain number on the border line and that there was a certain number that clearly did not come within its scope. It is obvious from the Minister's statement that the Referee and the board have examined a certain number of the files, that 16,540 people applied and that the advisory committee have examined and graded 11,707 cases to date and have selected for hearing by the Referee 7,267. Therefore, out of the 16,000 they have dealt with 11,000 cases, and prima facie, these people are entitled to a service certificate. Of this number there is no doubt whatever that there is a very large proportion on which the present Referee adjudicated and he will review his own decision. The Minister says that the Referee has actually heard 1,700 claims. I take it that that number of claims includes not only the number that this Referee has heard but those of his predecessor also.

Mr. Traynor

I presume that is so.

General MacEoin

I am taking it as such. That is why I think the Minister should have been a little more specific so that we would understand what exactly was happening in this case. This is 1952 and the Act was passed in 1949. Only 1,700 cases have been dealt with in slightly over two and a half years. There are 11,000 graded. When will the remainder be dealt with? When will those which have not been graded be heard? As I say, time is passing on. The youngest of us is no longer young. It is clear from the Minister's statement that out of 1,700 claims that have been heard, 713 people qualified. Is it not a very grave hardship, assuming that no one else qualifies, that 713 people who are entitled to a certificate of service have been deprived of it since 1934, or, if you like, since the 1924 Act was passed. I am trying to approach this not in any partisan or political way; I am trying to get justice done for my comrades and I do not care which side of the House they are on, and since the Acts of 1924 or 1934 were passed I have tried to live up to that principle.

Therefore I am appealing for speedier decisions. I am asking the Minister to get somebody who can read through the files quickly and if there is sufficient evidence to justify the award to make the award and let the applicant then know that an award has been made to him. If he regards that as insufficient let him appeal and let his case come up for hearing so that the matter will be dealt with speedily.

I do not want to go into matters relating to the administration of the Act. The idea of travelling around the various centers is a wise one and I want to commend the Government for the continuation of that system which I believe is right. There is, of course, the difficulty of obtaining witnesses. If a claimant says that So-and-so is in a position to certify service for him and if that person does not come up voluntarily with the claimant the Referee should issue a summons to him and compel his attendance at the hearing. Of course, there is an argument against that, that the State would have to pay that witness's expenses, but if it was found that the witness had material evidence in support of the applicant, then I would fine the witness for his failure to attend in the first instance. If the case should arise that the witness had no evidence he could be let off with a caution.

On the question of the amounts, I do not want to go to the trouble of repeating at length my arguments here before. When a person is found to qualify there should be a minimum standing pension and that that is what he must get. Let me give this example. A Black and Tan who joined the R.I.C. on the 9th July, 1921, two days before the truce and is demobilised in December, 1921, has a standard pension of £52 per annum. Now with the increased pensions in Britain he has about £90. He is getting a pension for a trip to Ireland. Of course, I admit that when he was coming he did not know but that it might be a prolonged stay in the country.

Mr. McGrath

Permanent residence.

General MacEoin

He might be set in Martin Corry's garden or in somebody's backyard. We will leave that be; there is a possibility that he would not enjoy his pension. That is what was done for these men. The Black and Tans who had longer service from their initiation here have pensions as high as £350 a year and the officers of them substantially more.

Even at the moment the total amount involved in military service pensions is the miserable figure of slightly over £400,000. Under the 1924 Act the total payment for 1952-53 is £145,932 and, under the 1934 Act, £263,930, a gross total of £409,000. To hear people talking one would think that there was a vast sum paid to the Old I.R.A. and to the people who served the country in its hour of need. When the Minister added them all together and put them into this figure he was hardly fair to the members who are in receipt of military service pensions. £409,000 is the gross total. Yet, about 300 Black and Tans—whom we beat and knocked spots off—for very short service, have a pension for that service alone of over £1,500,000. You may argue that the British Government are wealthy and that they could pay. If that is the case, let that argument be made.

There is the most extraordinary situation that you can have, a person who is in receipt of that Black and Tan pension employed in a Government Department and in the same office there may be a person who is in receipt of a military service pension under the 1924 Act or under the 1934 Act. One person receives his pension in full from the British Government and the person who is in receipt of a pension under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act, who served his country and is continuing to serve his country, suffers an abatement of his military service pension. Is there any sense of fair play or equity in that? None whatever.

Of course we can have the argument, "why did you not do something about it during your three and a half years of office?" I can see Deputy McGrath just simply hopping. Why did we not? The fact that I did not does not make it right to continue. It was wrong before. It was wrong during our term of office and it is wrong afterwards. It is wrong all the time. The longer it is left wrong the worse it becomes.

I do not argue the case on any merit but that it is inequitable and that that provision was inserted at a time when there was very severe financial restriction. I do not want to defend it. There were people in this House at that time who thought that no one of us, no matter how well he served in those days, was entitled to anything. I regret to say that people on the benches opposite, in the Government Benches now, played a very big part in that campaign. I know they regret it now. I shall not quote their speeches against military service pensions, nor shall I quote what they said about abolishing them when they would get into office, but there was a situation created in this country that every person who was in receipt of a military service pension under the 1924 Act was nearly a highwayman, that he was getting something that he was not entitled to and that it was a shame and a disgrace. Remember, that operates under the 1934 Act. There are people who are jealous and who hate to see anyone of that period getting any recognition.

I urge that the first thing that should be done in relation to military service pensions is that a standard minimum pension be struck; that if you establish service, if you establish that you took part in the defence of the country, the Government and the people at that time, there is a minimum rate. When the cost of living goes up, you can then face the problem of giving increases, and so on, that may arise.

I have received deputations, both as a Deputy and as a Minister, from the Old I.R.A. They made representation for an increase in their pensions owing to the cost of living. It is true that they are entitled to it. Of what use is it to talk about the cost of living in respect of a pension of £7 10s. a year? Where is the use in saying that you will increase that by 100 per cent. because, at best, what would that mean? —£15. I would suggest that this minimum rate be struck.

Again the Minister can argue that there is the special allowance arrangement that when a person becomes unable to support himself or his family there is provision for that, that there is a minimum, that there is a special allowance arrangement by which that person can get fair treatment; that we will give him a decent standard— not as much as we would like to give him—but a standard of living that will keep him from the poorhouse or from being a mendicant or a burden on his people.

Before I deal with the special allowance arrangement, I want to deal with the abatement. I appeal, as I appealed as a Deputy and as a Minister, to have that clause eliminated. The total amount involved this year and last year is the miserable figure, to the Government, of £39,000. I admit that as certificates are granted, if they are granted to people who are in the State service, that might increase but, having regard to the number of applicants who succeed and the number that die each year in the State service, the figure will not increase very much. Everybody knows that in ten or 15 years' time that portion of this Vote will be very tiny. It is very difficult to say what the figure will be. If such people continue to die at the same rate as they died last year, it appears to me that the number will be very small.

There were 700 pensions, roughly, granted last year or since the Act was passed. Strange as it may seem, it does not increase the Vote by one shilling. That means that since 1949, 700 men who had pensions have died and that the 700 new pensioners that came in barely filled the vacancy. That being so, the abatements would fall in the same way. I do not want, as I say, to score any debating points. That figure relating to the abatements is very little to the Government but it is a very grave matter for the people who should receive the money. I would say to the Government: "Do the generous thing right away and abolish that completely."

Mr. Colley

Would the Deputy say if he is speaking for himself or his colleagues in regard to that matter?

General MacEoin

I am speaking for my colleagues of the Party. I am speaking, first and foremost, as a comrade and an associate of every man who served from 1916 to the present day in the forces of this country. That has been my principle since I came into public life.

On the question of special allowances, I know that the means test is a very difficult matter. I know that fraud is likely to arise but the number of fraudulent cases are so few that it is hardly wise to punish offenders so severely. Where an applicant has a wife, even though the wife has money, she does not give it to him and he is still poor. Where the applicant is a person in receipt of national health insurance and living in a labourer's cottage or some such abode, I am sometimes astounded to learn what transpires when an investigation officer makes his report. Of course, I have to absolve the Department of Defence and the Minister from this charge but again there must be some way of getting over it. The investigation officer represents the Department of Finance and I find that in a certain case in which he reports to the Minister that the person is in receipt of national health insurance he makes this astounding assessment: "Earnings from his son under 18 years of age, over £232." The son who is described as a stone-mason is only serving his time.

Mr. Davin

He could not be a stone-mason at that age.

General MacEoin

He is only serving his time, and there is no money whatever coming from that source. The Act lays it down, unfortunately, that where a decision is given, even upon what is clearly a wrong assessment, the case cannot be reopened for 12 months. I know that the Department of Defence has a very able staff of officials, but why one of them would let a thing like that pass without querying it—the statement that a young fellow under 18 was earning this sum of money—passes my comprehension. I submit that the regulation relating to that 12-months' period should be re-examined, and that every effort should be made, where there is evidence available to show that a miscarriage of justice has taken place, to have a reassessment, no matter when the original assessment was made. Mind you, if it is a case where an applicant has succeeded and it is found that he has made a false statement, that is investigated very quickly and he is taken off. I say that where hardship has been imposed, it should be relieved at the earliest possible moment.

I come to he next group which I think are the most harshly treated of all. I refer to the widows and orphans of officers, N.C.O.s and men of the Old I.R.A. who are living on very meagre pensions—some of them on no pensions at all. Under certain sections of the Act when an officer or Volunteer having either a military service pension or a disability pension dies, both die with him. There is no provision whatever made for the widow or the family of such a man and the result is that the old comrades and their friends—I am glad to say there are a good many of them—have to pass round the hat or, in other words, to make a collection to relieve that hardship. I regret to say that it is true that a great number of us have not made provisions for our dependents. That is due to many causes; I am not going into them. Everybody knows that we have been generous with what we had at all times, and if one of us had a shilling in his pocket I suppose it would burn a hole in it if he kept it. There is no provision made for these widows and orphans. Too often it has come about that a collection has to be made, even in some cases to pay the funeral expenses. The number, as I say, is getting fewer. There are now only remain the widows because the mothers have practically all passed on. Where there was a mother dependent, it was only right that she should get the allowance.

I suggest that a regulation should be made governing the payment of pensions to the widows of these people, particularly the widows of those who had disability pensions and, if possible, covering the widows of those who had either a disability or military service pension. That is necessary in order to preserve the widow from hardship and to give her something better than is provided for her under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts which, of course, are good, but in my opinion, some little better provision should be made for these particular widows.

Then I come to the question of the date from which this Bill will be operative. I have always held the view that if a person is entitled to a military pension now he was entitled to it from the beginning. When Deputy Dr. O'Higgins was Minister for Defence, the present Minister was very strong on the point that the pension should be paid from the passing of the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act, whichever the person qualified under. He was more insistent, however, on the 1934 Act. As reported in column 636, Volume 118, of the Official Reports, the present Minister for Defence advocated that the Bill should be made retrospective to the 1st October, 1934.

Mr. McGrath

Did the Deputy vote against that?

General MacEoin

There was no vote on it. I will admit that his argument was countered by his predecessor simply saying: "We are an improvement upon you. You gave them nothing. We are giving them something now anyway." I do not think that either of the two approaches was the right one. The thing was to see who was entitled to it, and then let us have a non-Party vote by which justice would be done to those on either side of the civil war and those who did not take part in it. I appeal to the Minister, therefore, because he is fortified by the fact that he advocated when that Bill was going through that it should be made retrospective. I ask him to utilise that, and to see to it that what he supported in the House the Government of which he is now a member will support him in carrying out.

My appeal to the Minister is approximately that which was made to him by the Old I.R.A. Association. He has got a copy of the representations made to him and he has received deputations from that body, and I will not do anything that will make it more difficult for him to grant the requests made by them. I do appeal to the Minister, however, to examine the points I have made and that they made in that document and see that effect is given to them at the earliest possible moment. I appeal to him to have a referee appointed who cannot be charged, perhaps unfairly, I will admit, with being a partisan so far as his own decisions are concerned, not a partisan in a political sense or anything like that. If, having already decided a case, on hearing the evidence again, he reverses his decision, I respectfully submit that that is contrary to natural justice. I put it to the Minister that he can be appointed as a temporary judge while another judge is taken from the bench to do this work. I do not propose to comment on anything else relating to that except to say that you can have full confidence in that person for another type of work, but not for the type of work he is doing.

I must say that I do not like a number of things the Referee does. He is a very decent and very able man, but at the same time he does not display the wisdom that a person in his position should display. He should not accost witnesses outside his court. I say that the place in which he hears a case is, to all intents and purposes, his court, and that whatever he has to say to an applicant or a witness should be said inside the court, and that he should not accost them outside and issue an ultimatum. He is not being fair to himself when he does that and he gives a bad impression.

If the Minister does not make an alteration in regard to that, there will be still a very large number of applicants who will think that they did not get justice and that they will never get it. Therefore, I am appealing for speedy action so that those who will qualify will be able to get some benefit from it now while they are in a position to make some use of it. They do not want it as a memorial over their graves. They want it at the time when it can be of greatest use to them, when it can be of the greatest benefit to the people who served Ireland in her hour of need.

The next point is the military service pensions for serving personnel. Why have serving personnel who retire to wait for three, six, nine or 12 months before what they are entitled to under the statute is paid to them? I know there is a defence regulation that such persons must get a clearance certificate. How are these persons to live during the interval? I say that they should not be discharged, that they should be kept on the pay roll until inquiries have been made as to what shortages there may be. All that should be expedited and then, when you show that you are treating those who have served well, you can with confidence ask for the new recruits, for the younger fellows to come up. One of the most deadly factors against recruiting is seeing those who have served being harshly and badly treated. There is only one thing worse and that is sneering at some member of the Defence Forces. I do not care who the person is. I do not care what the rank is. Any man who served in the Army of this country in any capacity whatsoever has done something of which he can be proud. He holds an honour that can be proudly borne and sneering and insulting references should not be made about such a man by those who were not perhaps as courageous as he was when the opportunity was afforded them. I hope the Minister will give the appeal I have made sympathetic and urgent consideration.

Major de Valera

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.

Captain Cowan

I wish to support the case that has been made here this evening by Deputy General MacEoin, and the further and special case that has been made by Deputy Major de Valera. Listening to the speeches that have been made, I feel that it is a cause for deep regret that our legislation dealing with military service and Army pensions has not been taken out of the sphere of political discussion. It is true, of course, that in regard to the major matters that have been mentioned there is really no disagreement and that Deputies on all sides of the House support the case that has been made for increased pensions for members of the Old I.R.A. and increased pensions for widows of men who served in the I.R.A. and in the Defence Forces.

Looking right through the Acts governing pensions we find that they have their basis round about 1923. At that period we had very little experience in dealing with legislation at all and we had certainly very little experience in dealing with pensions. This Parliament then had no Irish basis on which to calculate pensions and it seemed to base them entirely on the cost of living at the time, disability pensions at any rate. In looking through the Acts we find that in 1923 the widow of a man killed or who died of wounds received on active service was entitled to a pension of 17/6 a week. That pension has not since been altered. Undoubtedly if those pensions were being fixed now a much higher rate would be determined upon, but in 1923 our legislators had a much different idea from what they have now. Consequently, the whole pension code has been governed by what I would describe and term as a mean and miserable mentality. Many of the defects that are now being pointed out, many of the defects of which the Minister is personally aware, and to which the Minister himself drew attention a short time ago when he was leading off the Opposition on the discussion of this Estimate, arise from the approach, the mean approach that was made to this matter of pensions 30 years ago. If this idea of 17/6 a week for a widow was based on some idea of the cost of living in 1923, it is not a satisfactory basis to-day. Arising out of those Acts, in 1923, a rate of two guineas per week was fixed for total disability. That has crept up to £2 10s. to-day. Obviously, there is no comparison between the value of £2 2s. 30 years ago and £2 10s. to-day. We must completely change our ideas. We must change the whole basis on which the structure of pensions legislation is built.

Deputy MacEoin referred to a military service pension of £6 or £7 a year. It is very difficult to follow the mentality behind the granting of a pension of £6 or £7 a year. Deputy General MacEoin made a very good suggestion, certainly one that I would support, that there ought to be a minimum pension for service. That minimum pension should be one that would indicate the regard in which this country holds the men who were prepared to sacrifice their lives for it.

Like many Deputies, I have been brought up in the tradition that the best service one could render to this State or to any other State was service in arms. The military profession was always held out, and I always regarded it, as a very noble profession, the noblest of professions. The conceptions or ideas that our politicians have, as enshrined in the legislation passed in this House over 30 years, would not suggest that military service was held in the high honour that it ought to be.

It is surprising that, just a couple of years ago, the then Government brought in legislation to increase pensions for everybody except members of the Old I.R.A. The most heartening thing that I have heard in this House in recent weeks was the very definite declaration made by the Minister for Finance, on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, that the present Government would not neglect the Old I.R.A. I know the House knows, and members representing the various Old I.R.A. organisations that have interviewed the Minister know, how sympathetic the Minister is to their claims. The general view amongst those Old I.R.A. organisations is that, if it were within the Minister's power to increase the pensions and remove causes of grievance, the Minister would do it right away.

We all know the complexities of government. We all understand the grip and influence of the Department of Finance. That is why it was most heartening to have that declaration a week or so ago from the Minister for Finance that the present Government would not neglect the Old I.R.A. If I interpret that rightly, it could only mean one thing. I hope I am right in my interpretation that, in the very near future, we will have a declaration from the Government that there will be substantial increases in the pensions awarded to the Old I.R.A., to the widows of the Old I.R.A., and particularly to those soldiers of the Old I.R.A. who are incapacitated as a result of their service.

There are quite a number of points that have been made to me by representatives of the Old I.R.A., but they have been already made to the Minister. They are incorporated in the pamphlet to which Deputy General MacEoin has referred, and I know they have been sympathetically considered by the Minister. Consequently, there is no necessity for me to go into these matters in detail, but there are a few outstanding matters to which I would like to refer.

Deputy General MacEoin and Deputy Major de Valera have referred to the question of the abatement of military service pensions. That has been a source of annoyance since 1924. Under the system as operated since 1924, if a person is in receipt of a military service pension and serves this State in any other capacity, either in the Civil Service or in the local government service, a proportion of his military service pension is abated because of that. A person who served in the I.R.A. and who is, at present, in a Civil Service department or in a local government department suffers a deduction in his pension simply because he is in receipt of money from a Government or local government source.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.