When I moved to report progress, I was dealing with the general question of the amounts paid as pensions to members of the Old I.R.A. and to the widows of members of the Old I.R.A. I had made the point that in relation to 1923, when these pensions were originally fixed, the same amounts paid now, in view of the increased cost of living in the meantime, are entirely inadequate. I instanced certain persons specifically.
I mentioned the case of the widow's pension of 17/6 a week fixed by the 1923 Act and not altered since. There are quite a number of anomalies and quite a number of matters to be rectified. We have the extraordinary position in regard to a widow of a man who was wounded and died of wounds after 1924 and prior to 1937 that no pension is paid in that case. That is in the case of a person who was married after 1924 and prior to 1937. A gratuity of £112 10s. is payable in that case but if the wounded Old I.R.A. man married since 1937 no pension at all is payable to his wife when he dies. That is certainly unfair because a husband or a father with a disability which entitles him to a pension cannot make provision by way of insurance for his family. Obviously, being in receipt of such a disability pension, no insurance company would take him. If they did insure him they would only do so at a premium he could not afford. In the circumstances a very grave hardship is caused to the widows and families of those Old I.R.A. men who are in receipt of wound pensions and who have married subsequent to 1937.
Even where a marriage allowance is payable, when the percentage of disability increases there is no increase in the marriage allowance. I put it to the Minister—I am sure that in this matter I will have the entire support of the House—that there is a good case for removing the anomalies and the causes of grievance in regard to these matters.
Then there is the case of a person with a disability aggravated by service and where, as a result, a person loses a limb. There is no provision whereby an artificial limb can be provided for that person. I think that is something that ought to be remedied. If a person loses a limb as a result of a disability aggravated by service, an artificial limb should be provided for him by the State free of charge, and he should be maintained during the period he is learning to use the artificial limb.
There is a further cause of grievance in the case of those pensioners whose pension award is made final. Where the award is made final the recipient is not entitled to hospitalisation and the State will not contribute to the expenses of his hospitalisation. We all know that special hospitals and special hospital facilities are provided for men from this country who served in the British forces.
I think we owe that much at least to the members of the Old I.R.A. who are in receipt of pensions for wounds and disability. Even after their pension award is made final they should receive any necessary hospital treatment and hospitalisation free of charge and at the expense of the State.
Special hospitals or a special hospital in proper surroundings should be set aside wherein those veterans of the War of Independence could be treated and where they could have, during the period of their treatment, adequate recreation or rest rooms. They should have grounds or parks in which they could walk around to enjoy themselves as best they could during the period they were in hospital. I think every member of the House, and every member of the public, would support the Minister if he were to provide hospitals for the treatment of those men who served the State in their younger days without counting the cost.
Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Vivion de Valera have asked the Minister to put an end to the abatement that is made in respect of military service pensions. Where a person served in the Old I.R.A. and is in receipt of a military service pension, his pension is abated, or reduced, if he should happen to draw money from the State or from a local authority. We have instances of individuals who served in the I.R.A. and are in receipt of military service pensions working side by side with individuals who, at the same period, served in the British forces and are now in receipt of British pensions for that service. In the case of the man who served in the British forces, he receives his British pension in full without any deduction, whereas the man who served this State has a deduction made from his pension under the authority of this Dáil.
The amount received by the State under that abatement has been variously estimated. I understood the figure was something about £27,000. I endeavoured, by means of questions to the previous Minister for Finance, and the previous Minister for Defence, to ascertain precisely the amount involved, but apparently it was not readily obtainable. I was informed that it would be too difficult to ask to have a return prepared giving exactly the amount by which the State benefits as a result of this abatement. Deputy MacEoin yesterday put it at a figure not exceeding £35,000. Whether it is £27,000 or £35,000, a good case has been made to the Minister and the Government to have those abatements abolished. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be encouraged by the expressions of opinion that have been made from all sides of the House to have this abatement, which is in the nature of a nuisance, wiped out.
As regards the ordinary administration of it, there are complaints from men entitled to military service pensions that their pensions are held up because the local authorities by whom they are employed do not send proper returns to the Department of Defence in time in regard to their remuneration. As a result, payment of the pensions to which those men are entitled is held up until such time as the local authority thinks fit to send the information to the Minister's Department. There is that little bit of annoyance added to the general feeling in regard to the abatements. We must also understand that, although the abatement is administered by the section which deals with pensions in general, there must be some cost to the State to administer this particular section. Therefore, on the grounds that cost can be avoided, that it is an annoyance and that it is inequitable and unfair, the Minister would have good grounds for abolishing this abatement.
Another problem with which the members of the Old I.R.A. are faced at the moment is in connection with their service in Government Departments or with local authorities. Men who served in the I.R.A. between 1916 and 1921 or 1923—quite a number of them—obtained employment in the Civil Service or with local authorities. They find now, reaching as they are the age limit for retirement, that they are not entitled to the same Civil Service or local authority conditions as to pension as if they had served in the Civil Service or with a local authority, instead of in the I.R.A., during those years.