Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 9

Private Business. - Army Pensions Bill, 1953. —Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read aSecond Time. This Bill, as Deputies will have seen for themselves, is a rather long and, in many respects, a complicated one. An effort has been made, in the explanatory memorandum which accompanied it, to explain its principal provisions as simply as possible, and I myself will now do my best to go into the provisions and the considerations underlying them in the fullest possible detail consistent with a Second Reading statement. Many of the sections are in the nature of what is known as legislation by reference— that is, they are built up by reference to sections of previous Acts. That, unfortunately, is unavoidable, because if a full recitation of the previous provisions were resorted to, it would make the Bill considerably longer and I do not think it would necessarily make it easier for the House to deal with it. If, however, any information is desired about any of the sections, additional to that contained in the explanatory memorandum and that which I now propose to furnish in this statement, I shall be glad to give a more detailed explanation of any such sections at Committee Stage.

The Bill is divided into a number of parts. As indicated in the explanatory memorandum, there is no particular need to comment on Part I, which contains the usual provisions regarding interpretation. Part II deals with proposed enhanced allowances, in certain cases, for the relatives of deceased persons who had pre-truce service; Part III provides for increases generally in the pensions and allowances payable under the Army Pensions Acts; Part IV effects an alteration in the present statutory dates of marriage in relation to eligibility for married pensions and widows' and children's allowances under the Acts; Part V introduces a number of alterations with regard to the general system of, and the rates of, special allowances, and Part VI contains some necessary provisions of an administrative and general nature.

As Deputies are aware, the present allowances for the dependents of deceased persons who were killed in the course of duty during the pre-Truceand post-Truce periods or who died of wounds received or disease incurred during these periods, are provided for in the Acts of 1923, 1927 and 1932. In addition, the Act of 1937 provided for what are known as special dependents' allowances. I do not wish to go into these Acts in unnecessary detail and I think it will be sufficient if I say that in the 1923 Act, as subsequently amended, it is laid down that the allowance for the widow of an officer will be £135 a year, and for the widow of a soldier 17/6 a week. One allowance is payable to a wholly dependent relative, who may be the mother; the father if over 60 years of age or incapacitated by ill-health; a permanently invalided brother; a permanently invalided unmarried sister or a grandparent of the deceased person. This allowance is at the rate of £1 a week for the dependent relative of an officer and 15/- a week for the dependent relative of a soldier. The allowances under the Act of 1927 and the conditions as to total dependency are the same. In the Act of 1932, in which there is no distinction as to rank, the allowances are £67 10s. a year for a widow and 15/- a week for a wholly dependent relative. The special dependents' allowances provided for in the Act of 1937 are subject to a means test and cannot, when added to the dependent's yearly means, equal or exceed £40 a year. Only one such allowance is payable in respect of any deceased person, and the beneficiary may be his mother; his father, if over 60 years of age and incapacitated by ill-health; his permanently invalided brother or his permanently invalided unmarried sister. There are conditions as to dependency but that dependency need not have been total.

I have not, as I said, gone into absolute detail with regard to the provisions of the existing Acts; there are, for instance, somewhat higher allowances for dependents of persons executed in 1916. I have merely selected the salient points for the purpose of comparison with the provisions now contained in Part II of the present Bill. The Government, when considering, some time ago, the position generally of members of the OldI.R.A., decided to provide for the enhanced allowances now proposed for the dependents of deceased members. The first condition of eligibility for the award of an enhanced allowance is that the deceased person must have had pre-truce service. Assuming that he had such service, the allowance will be payable irrespective of whether he was killed, or received the wound or incurred the disease from which he died, during pre-truce or post-truce service. The second is that, in the case of wound or disease, the deceased person must have died from such wound or disease within what I may broadly describe as the four-year period already laid down, in one form or another, in the existing Acts. The detailed requirements in that regard are set out in the explanatory memorandum and I do not think I need detain the House by repeating them now.

The proposed rates of allowance are £250 a year for a widow, £180 a year for a parent and £125 a year for a widowed or unmarried sister. The rates will be the same, whether the deceased person was an officer or a soldier, and there is no question of dependency except in the case of a sister. Only one allowance will, of course, be payable at the same time in respect of any deceased person, but there is provision that where one of the relatives I have mentioned dies while in receipt of an enhanced allowance under this part, the appropriate allowance may be paid to a surviving eligible relative.

A number of widows, parents and sisters who are already in receipt of allowances under the existing Acts will, prima facie,be eligible for these enhanced allowances as from the 1st January, 1953, subject, where necessary, to the examination of their applications by the Military Service Registration Board and the Army Pensions Board, for which the Bill provides. In the same way, some of the relatives at present in receipt of special dependents' allowances under the Act of 1937, will also,prima facie,be eligible for the new allowance. Persons whose applications under the existing Acts were refused on grounds of means or because they were unableto prove total dependency will be eligible to apply now for these new allowances, as will also persons who did not previously apply under the existing Acts. There may have been persons who did not apply because they knew they did not comply with the means and dependency requirements. Allowances granted to persons not already in receipt of allowances under the Act will commence on a date not earlier than that on which this Bill becomes law.

Applications under this part will, where necessary, be referred to the Military Service Registration Board. In the past, there were various methods of establishing membership, etc. The Military Service Registration Board dealt with all applications under the Act of 1932, whereas under the earlier Acts, the Minister certified service from records available to him, and so on. It is now thought desirable that, where there may be doubt, the Military Service Registration Board should be able to subject applications, whether from persons in receipt of existing allowances or not, to examination for the purposes of this Bill, particularly on the important requirement of pre-truce service. I would emphasise that everybody—even persons in receipt of the existing allowances— desiring to be considered for the new allowances now being provided for must apply within 12 months after the Bill becomes law.

I think I have now dealt with the most important features of Part II and I may, therefore, pass on to Part III which relates to proposed increases in the rates of existing pensions and allowances. I may introduce the matter by saying that the pensions and allowances which were in operation up to 1949 were, in a number of cases, increased as from the 1st April, 1949, by the Army Pensions (Increase) Act, 1949. This Act to some extent anticipated the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950, which provided increases for other State pensioners—civil servants and so on—and, from the discussions earlier this year on the Military Service Pensions Act, 1953, Deputies will remember the general basis of the increase granted by the Act of 1950. It is setout in the present Bill at Section 12, which defines the expression "appropriate sum" and Deputies will see that there is a scale of increases commencing with a 50 per cent. increase on pensions under £100 a year. This particular part seems to me to be one which can best be discussed, if necessary, at Committee Stage, because it would be very tedious for the House if I were to take each section and explain the type of case to which it refers.

The principle which has been followed, however, is, where the pension or allowance is a fixed sum, to take it as it stood before the Army Pensions (Increase) Act, 1949, was enacted and increase it by the appropriate annual sum. Where, as in the cases of officers discharged after the 1st October, 1924, the pension is not set down as a specific sum, but is expressed as a percentage of pay, the officer will be eligible for a pension of whichever of the following amounts is the lesser:—

(a) the amount of disability pension which would be payable if the Increase Act of 1949 had not been passed, increased by the appropriate annual sum, or

(b) the amount of pension which would be payable if he had been discharged on the 2nd September, 1946, and his rank and service on that date were the same as those on the date of his actual discharge.

Mr. S. Collins

I am wondering is that a mistake? Should it be the greater?

Mr. Traynor

Whichever sum is the lesser. That provision maintains the principle laid down in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950, which applies to civil servants and other classes of State pensioners covered by that Act, and under which no pensioner whose pension is directly related to his pay can receive an increase which would bring his pension above what he would receive if his service terminated on the 31st October, 1946.

Married pensions are being increased by a flat 25 per cent. Any system of amalgamating married pensions with ordinary pensions, applying the appropriateincrease to the combined pensions and breaking them down into separate units again would have resulted in anomalies in some cases, and I am satisfied that the position has been met as fairly as possible, for all concerned, by this proposed flat increase.

All increases under Part III will take effect, as in the case of the military service pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act passed earlier this year, as from the 1st January, 1953.

Before leaving Part III, however, I should like to bring two particular provisions to the attention of the House. Part II of the Act of 1937, which related to relatives of the Signatories of the Proclamation of 1916, provided annual allowances for life at the rate of £500 a year for widows and £100 a year for sisters. There were also allowances for children which no longer apply as the upper age limit was 25 years. The Government considered that the allowances for sisters are no longer adequate, particularly in relation to the allowances now proposed for sisters in Part II of this Bill. Provision is now being made, therefore, in Section 13 for the increase of the allowances payable to sisters of the Signatories from £100 a year to £250 a year.

I should also like to refer to Sections 25 and 27, which relate to the increase of allowances for dependents of members of the permanent force killed or injured in the course of duty. I might best illustrate the effect of these sections by reference to the particular case of a deceased Air Corps officer which was before this House some time ago. At present, the widow of this officer is in receipt of an allowance of £186 a year in respect of herself and her six children. Under Section 27, this will be increased to £252 a year, which is the new allowance appropriate to a widow and six children. The sum of £252 will be further increased by 33? per cent. under Section 25, by reason of the fact that the officer was killed on duty. Thus the total allowance will be £336 a year, as compared with the present £186—that is, there is an increase of£150 a year. Later, as each child reaches the age of 11, a refund of educational fees actually incurred will be made up to £60 a year, as compared with the present figure of £30. I hope that Deputies will feel that the representations made in this case—there are, indeed, a number of similar cases —have been reasonably met by the provisions now proposed.

Part IV proposes to amend the provisions of existing Acts relative to the statutory dates of marriage for the purposes of married pensions and widows' and children's allowances. At present, eligibility for a married pension on the part of a person awarded a disablement pension under the Acts is related to a particular date. In wound cases it is the date on which the wound was received; in disease cases under the 1927 Act, it is the date of discharge and in disease cases under the 1932 Act, it is the 1st October, 1924, that is, the person must have been married by the date on which he received the wound, by the date on which he was discharged or by the 1st October, 1924, whichever date is applicable to his particular case. The Government have now decided—again in connection with their consideration of the position of the Old I.R.A.—to extend the existing dates for marriage to the day before the passing of the Act of 1932. That Act became law on the 10th December, 1932, and the position is, therefore, broadly, that provided marriages took place not later than the 9th December, 1932, there will be, prima facie, eligibility for married pension and for widows' and children's allowances. This part of the Bill has been dealt with in considerable detail in the explanatory memorandum and I do not think, therefore, that I need dwell on it now. I have enunciated the principle underlying the provisions of the part and, again, I will be glad to give any further particulars requested at Committee Stage or when making my closing statement on this Second Reading.

I now come to Part V which deals with special allowances. These allowances were first introduced by the Act of 1943 and at the moment, almost3,000 allowances are being paid. From time to time, the classes eligible to apply for them have been extended by various Acts, and all the eligible classes are now set out in Section 41 (3) of the Bill. Deputies will notice that, as I indicated when dealing earlier this year with the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Act, 1953, pensioners under the Connaught Rangers Acts are now being made eligible to apply for special allowances. I would also like to invite attention to another provision. At present, a person awarded a 1917-1921 medal with bar is not eligible for a special allowance unless the medal was awarded to him on application made on or before the 30th January, 1950. Since that date, almost 6,000 applications have been received for medals, and in Section 41 (3) (a) (iv) of the Bill, the latest date of application carrying eligibility to apply for a special allowance is being extended to a date 12 months after the Bill becomes law. As Deputies can see, that in itself is likely to bring about, in due course, a further considerable increase in the number of special allowances.

At present, where a special allowance has been refused or terminated, a further application cannot be entertained until 12 months have elapsed. That proviso is maintained in the present Bill, but Section 41 (2) contains an additional provision enabling the Minister, in exceptional cases, to accept a further application within 12 months. This will cover two sets of circumstances. In the first place, it will enable persons who were refused special allowances within the last 12 months on grounds of means to make fresh applications immediately the Bill becomes law, if their means are below the increased appropriate annual sums to which I will refer later. Without this provision which I am including, those persons would have to wait for the full 12 months. In the second place, the provision will cover the cases of persons who were refused allowances or had them terminated on the ground that they did not comply with the statutory requirements as to means or incapacity, and will make itpossible for them to have a further application entertained within 12 months if they can satisfy the Minister that their means or state of health have so materially altered as to make them eligible for a special allowance. These cases should be quite exceptional and there will have to be a very material change in circumstances before a renewed application will be considered within the 12 months.

The system of special allowances has now become pretty well established. As Deputies know, they are reviewed annually, and there is an annual inquiry into means by the local social welfare officers. I am considering a modification in the system under which cases in which there has been no material change in means over a number of years would not necessarily be sent to the social welfare officers each year. Furthermore, the Minister for Finance, as Deputies will see from Section 41 (1), is prepared to give general authority to the Minister for Defence to make awards without reference to him. In deciding upon these arrangements a great deal of consideration has been given to the position of the special allowance holders themselves and particularly to the undesirability of having breaks in time between the termination of one annual award and the grant of a new one, as sometimes unavoidably happens at present owing to the machinery of review. The new arrangements should materially eliminate such cases, but if the revised system is to work, it is necessary to place on special allowance holders the obligation of themselves reporting improvement in means or any other changed circumstances which would result in a downward revision of their allowances. This obligation is placed on them by Section 43, and any overpayment caused as a result of noncompliance with that section will be recoverable. In addition, special allowance holders may, under Section 43, be prosecuted for not reporting, in the same way as they can at present for making false statements in connection with their special allowances.

Deputies will notice that by Section 41 (4), the appropriate annual sum— that is, the ceiling in respect of meansfor a special allowance—is, for persons under 70 years of age, being increased. The existing £78, which applies to certain categories such as unmarried men, is being increased to £104, and the existing £97 10s., which applies to persons married before the 1st October, 1942, is being increased to £130. It may be wondered why this increase is being confined to persons under 70, and I will explain the reasons. Up to 1951, the old age pension of a person of 70 or over was taken into account as means for special allowance purposes, and in the same way a special allowance was taken into account as means for old age pension purposes.

By the Social Welfare Act, 1951, the first £80 a year of a disability pension, a special allowance or any combination of them up to a total of £80 a year became disregarded as means for the purpose of an old age pension. At about the same time, the joint directions governing special allowances were amended so as to enable an old age pension to be disregarded as means for the purpose of a special allowance. As from January, 1953, the first £80 a year of a military service pension or any combination of such pension with disability pension or special allowance was also exempted as means for old age pension purposes. With these changes the person of 70 or over received benefits which gave him a considerable advantage over the person under 70 as regards the assessment of means. It is as a step towards the restoration of the balance that the increases in special allowances now proposed are being introduced for persons under 70.

I think I might at this stage refer to other steps in connection with special allowances to be taken by amendments of the joint directions which will have effect as from the date on which this Bill becomes law. In the first place, it is proposed, in the case of persons under 70, to disregard the first £30 a year of a military service pension or a disability pension or any combination of them as means for special allowance purposes. In case Deputies may think that undue benefits are being conferred on this class, I would like to quote the following figures which, I think, show that we are bringing thespecial allowances of persons under 70 and those of persons of 70 years of age or more, as close to each other as is possible under the system governing these allowances. In the case of the person under 70 which I am using as an illustration, I am assuming that his only income is his military service pension of £30 a year and his special allowance, and I am disregarding the military service pension for special allowance purposes. In the case of the person of 70 or over, I am taking the means to be his military service pension of £30 a year, old age pension and special allowance, and I am disregarding the first £80 of the combined military service pension and special allowance for old age pension purposes and the entire old age pension for special allowance purposes.

On that basis, a single man under 70 with a military service pension of £30 a year will, in future, be eligible for special allowance at the full rate of £103 10s., giving him a total income of £133 10s. A single man of 70 and over with a military service pension of £30 will be eligible for special allowance at the rate of £47 10s. (i.e. the existing £77 10s. less military service pension of £30 assessed as means) and an old age pension of £56. His income will, therefore, be £30 plus £47 10s. plus £56 or a total of £133 10s., the same as a single man under 70.

In the same way, a married man under 70 with a military service pension of £30 a year will be eligible for special allowance at the full rate of £129 10s. 0d. giving him a total income of £159 10s. 0d. A married man of 70 or over with a military service pension of £30 will be eligible for a special allowance of £67 (i.e. the existing £97 less £30 pension assessed as means) and old age pension of £56. This will give him a total income of £30 plus £67 plus £56 or £153, as compared with £159 10s. for a married man under 70. Here we did not get absolute equality, but we approached it as closely as possible under a system which must to some extent be arbitrary.

Another feature of this exemption of the first £30 of a military service pension in the case of persons under 70 is that it gives some advantageto the man with a certificate of pensionable military service over the man whose eligibility for a special allowance is based on his possession of the medal only. The military service pensioner whose age is 70 or over already has that advantage, in that his military service pension up to £80 a year is not counted as means for old age pension purposes and his old age pension, as I have already indicated, is in its turn wholly disregarded for special allowance purposes.

There are two other matters affecting special allowances to which I might also refer. As regards the transfer of property by an applicant for a special allowance, the Joint Directions governing special allowances are more rigid than the Seventh Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1953, which lays down the means tests to be applied in connection with applications for old age pensions. I have secured the agreement of the Minister for Finance to bring the Joint Directions into line with the Social Welfare Act in that regard. I am also, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance, modifying the Joint Directions with regard to the computation for means purposes of the earnings of children under the age of 18 At present, such earnings are fully reckonable for means purposes. In future they will be reckoned in a modified manner only, to the substantial advantage of the parent.

Lastly, as regards special allowances, provision is made in Section 44 of the Bill to the effect that where a person whose annual award of special allowance has expired, dies before a new award is made to him, a gratuity corresponding in amount to the allowance he would have received up to the date of his death may be paid to the next-of-kin. Up to the present, this can, under Section 12 of the 1949 Act, be done only where the Minister for Defence has actually made a recommendation to the Minister for Finance for a renewed allowance and cases which were still under review at the time of the applicant's death are not covered.

I do not think that it is necessary for me to speak at any length on the sections contained in the miscellaneous part of the Bill—Part VI. Section 45 enables the Minister for Finance to give a general consent for the grant of pensions and allowances under the Acts. At present, specific consent must be given in each individual case. Section 47 provides, as regards officers discharged on or after the date on which the Bill becomes law, new tables of percentages of pay on which disablement pensions are to be based. These new percentages are necessary because, upon the consolidation of officers' pay in April, 1950, certain allowances, such as lodging, fuel and light allowance and ration allowance, were added to the former regimental rates of pay and these allowances for the first time became pay, and thus, increased pay for the purposes of pension. The percentages now provided are lower than those formerly in operation, but they will not in any case, for the reasons I have mentioned, result in a lower pension for any officer than hitherto, where the circumstances of disablement are the same. In other words, instead of the present higher percentage of a lower rate of pay, the position now will be a lower percentage of a higher rate of pay. Married officers, whose rates of pay are higher than those of single officers of corresponding ranks will receive a lower percentage of pay as pension, but both pensions—those for a married and single officer with the same degree of disablement—will, as at present, be of the same amount. The married officer will, if he fulfils the statutory conditions, be eligible in addition for the separate married pension.

Sections 46, 53 and 54 are amending provisions arising from the consolidation of officers' pay which I have mentioned. They merely bring the Acts into line with the new position.

Section 48 provides, as regards claims for wound pensions from Army personnel, a period of five years within which an appeal for reconsideration of a rejected claim, or of a claim in respect of which only a gratuity was awarded, may be entertained. A provision of this nature was made in theAct of 1932 for cases coming under that Act, but no corresponding provision was made for Army personnel under the 1927 Act. The section also provides for reconsideration of a similar nature, on application made within 12 months after the Bill becomes law, of claims in respect of wounds received since the commencement of the emergency which were rejected or met by the award of a gratuity only. Section 49 provides a 12 months' extension for applications from widows or dependents of Army personnel alleged to have died from disease attributable to service during the emergency or from wounds received during or subsequent to the emergency.

Section 50 corrects an existing anomaly under which if a dependent relative—say, a mother—dies while in receipt of a special dependent's allowance under the Act of 1937, another dependent—a father, for instance—is not free to apply for it. Sections 50 and 51 make certain adjustments as a result of the proposed raising of the ceiling for the purpose of these special dependents' allowances from £40 to £60 a year. Sections 55 and 56 merely adjust some difficulties of interpretation which have arisen in particular pension cases.

The cost of the increases for which this Bill provides is of the order of £160,000 a year, and it is likely to go much higher as time passes, particularly with regard to special allowances, because we are now opening the door to a possibly very large number of applications at present statute-barred. Deputies will recollect that, in dealing with the Military Service Pensions Act, 1953, earlier this year, I gave the cost of that particular measure as £250,000 a year, and, as I then indicated also, the combined cost of these two measures must be regarded by any reasonable person as a very substantial one in the present financial stringency. I am sure that the House will approach its examination of the Bill with that consideration in mind.

Mr. MacBride

As the Minister has indicated, the Bill is a mass of complicated legislation by reference. I wonder could the Minister have prepareda fairly simple paper showing the existing rates of pensions in one column and the Acts and Titles of the Acts under which they were granted and the new rates? I think it would all fit on a sheet of foolscap and I think it would facilitate Deputies very considerably if they could be given a picture of the situation in that way.

Mr. Traynor

That is a rather complicated question.

Mr. MacBride

It is not half as complicated as the Bill.

General MacEoin

I think the Minister is to be congratulated for the effort he has made on behalf of the Old I.R.A. and their dependents. He has at the outset, in my opinion, taken steps that will expedite and speed up decisions. I am glad that he has been able to superimpose himself on the Minister for Finance, that he now gets a global sanction for the cases instead of individual payments and that is something on which I would like to commend him. I am very glad that he has succeeded in getting what other Ministers have failed up to the present to secure.

As Deputy MacBride has pointed out, I hate this type of legislation by reference. It is impossible for any Deputy to know exactly what cases will be covered fully and then, of course, as usual, we will always have the border-line cases. I would ask the Minister two things before going into the Bill itself; first, for goodness' sake to take out the line or date limit— that you must apply on or before such a date. There is no necessity for that, and you are simply tying your hand again worse than the Minister for Finance could ever tie it, because you are tying yourself by statute. Take it out. If a person is entitled to it in June, then he is entitled to it in the following January just as well. I do not like it. Why that is put in beats me, but every Act we ever had has the phrase "unless the application is made on or before" or "not later than" such a date. Let us get away from that. Being as generous as you are— and it is generous in all respects—you are cutting the buttons off it with that, and it is not the right thing to do.

The Minister says in the course of his remarks that this will extend to a very great extent the numbers, and will increase the expenditure. That is so, but I regret to say for a very short time. The time factor is operating against every single person who took part in the periods referred to by the Minister, and 15 years hence if the roll has to be called it will be small.

Mr. Traynor

They will be all out.

General MacEoin

It will be a small rally. The members of a firing party that you could get then would be very few and far between. Therefore, when the Minister is doing a good thing, I would like him to do it the way I think every member of the House would have him do it, and in which I think the Minister and the Government are prepared to do it. I would like to tell the Minister what I would like him to do.

The explanatory memorandum itself is nearly as difficult to interpret as the Bill. The difference between them is very little. And when a Deputy sits down to see if a certain type of case is covered, mind you, it is not too clear that that will be so. I feel that there is no necessity to introduce these difficult technical terms that our comrades will find it extremely difficult to interpret, and that it should be simpler in its language, and that when a person is entitled to this allowance, disability pension or whatever it may be whether in 1916 or whatever category they come into, that they will be able to see at a glance that they are entitled to it or at least that they are eligible to apply for it. I feel that one of the greatest difficulties that we have is with people believing they are entitled to things, applying for them and then not getting them. That takes much of the good out of the legislation.

I am very grateful and glad that the Minister was able to bring in the special allowances for the dependents of those who died at any of the periods from 1916 to 1923. I am grateful to the Minister. I did submitcertain facts to him prior to this, relating to the dependents of people who died in the course of the struggle, and I am glad to see that he has covered them. But now when I want to search to make sure of that I find it very difficult to prove. I know it is covered but it is extremely difficult to make a concrete case—that you can take up a case and say: "Now there is a case that the Bill covers". For that reason, I would like the thing to be more simple, but, however, we must be grateful for the measure such as it is, for its generosity—for it is generous —only for the difficulty of translation and interpretation. It is a pity we could not get over that.

On the question of the Minister being able, from the records at his disposal, to give certificates himself as to membership, I think he should retain that very fully himself. It is, of course, wise that he has a body such as the Registration Board, to which he can refer the matter to see if a person would come within the category, or if he was a member of the organisations referred to in the various Acts, because the various Acts refer to various units that comprised the Forces from 1916 to 1923—the Volunteers, the Citizen Army, Fianna Éireann and so on. It is sometimes difficult to disentangle certain other organisations from membership, or to include them in membership.

We do know that there was a secret organisation which, in some cases, did not get the recognition at all under the Act to which it was entitled. The members of this organisation were organisers, people who helped to bring these organisations into being, but they are sometimes excluded because they did not appear in the rôle of volunteers in any area. I admit that it is a difficult question but, at the same time, I hope that the Minister for Defence for some years to come will be a person who was himself associated with the movement in the past, who will have a thorough knowledge of the circumstances that prevailed at the time and who, therefore, can with greater strength and with a clearer mind give a certificate readier thanthis Registration Board before which a claim has to be proved conclusively on certain technical lines.

I do not propose to go into the Bill in detail because I think the Committee Stage would be a more convenient time to do that than the Second Stage. It will be easier then, perhaps, to get a picture of what the Minister intends to cover. I know he wants to be as generous as he possibly can but it is only when we are on the Committee Stage that we can get a fair picture of the cases covered. As private members are not allowed, I presume, to move amendments that would increase expenditure from Central Funds, we have to ask the Minister now to prepare these amendments himself. I am not sure whether the widows of officers, N.C.O.s or men of the Forces who died subsequent to 1924 are fully covered. We had some cases—nearly every Deputy knows about them—in which men who had been in receipt of disability pensions died. Death, if not solely due to their service, at least was accelerated by their service. Their widows up to the present have not been covered. I think it is the Minister's intention to cover such cases but again it is not clear and I should like to hear a statement from the Minister on the matter. I shall try to give him a hypothetical case. B, a soldier, had a disability pension and a military service pension. He suffered from a disability in respect of which he was given a pension and after getting that pension he contracted another disease which, it could be argued, was attributable to his service but he died from the disease contracted subsequent to the disability. Both his military service pension and his disability pension died with him. The question that arises is, is his widow covered by this Bill? As I say, I think she is but again I am not clear that she is. There are several people in that category that I know of.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister nodded his head to indicate that she was covered.

Mr. Traynor

I do not want to interrupt but she would not be in.

General MacEoin

I should like to know what is the Minister's view.

Mr. Traynor

She would not be in, either under this Bill or any other Act.

General MacEoin

The disease from which he died was, say, an ordinary cold but he had a disability which he contracted on service. He had a pension in respect of that disability but he contracted something else from which he died. The death certificate does not say that he died from the disability for which he got the pension but from this other ailment. I want to know is that case covered, because it was my intention at all times to cover such cases. There are several cases like that. I would be glad to know if the Minister would consider covering such cases, because no private Deputy can move an amendment to cover them.

I am glad that in the case of serving personnel of the Army an improvement in this respect is being effected. We had a certain case here relating to a member of the Air Force which got a good deal of publicity. An improvement is being effected in such cases. I would prefer to leave the discussion of such cases to my young colleague here who was a member of the Forces at a later period than I was, but I should like to point out that the increase in children's allowances is very small. The allowance is much less than the amount necessary to maintain any child. In a case like that, where the breadwinner is killed on duty, more is expected from the employer, be it the State or anybody else. On the civil side when a death occurs in the course of a man's employment a very high percentage of compensation is allowed to the child and I understand that the conditions are about to be improved. I think that the Minister should have taken steps to improve conditions for orphans of men killed on duty. This of course represents a substantial increase in the way the Minister put it. The Minister certainly painted a picture——

Mr. Traynor

I only stated the facts. I did not paint a picture.

General MacEoin

On its face it does look as if it were a very substantial increase.

Mr. Traynor

You have got to judge on the figures.

General MacEoin

I am not cavilling about it. The Minister, however, by giving the whole year's allowance was able to represent it as a fairly substantial sum but divide it up into a week's allowance, as the mother will have to do to support the child, and it becomes very small. That is the only point I am making. I think the Minister is anxious to do the right thing in all such cases and I think he should be only too glad to know that we on this side, and indeed everybody in the House, are willing to assist him in that direction. We have been agitating for this measure for some time and I am glad that steps have been taken in particular to improve the financial position of widows and that, in future, the situation so far as they are concerned will be better than it has been in the past. That is not saying a great deal for it, but the position will be better than it was. I do not yet regard it as adequate and I would appeal to the Minister to re-examine the position and be as generous as he possibly can.

I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on having got as far as he has with the administrative sections. I trust he will exercise the blanket authority he now has generously and do all he possibly can for this ever-dwindling number of people. I thank him, in particular, for extending the special allowances and dependents' allowances to the widows and mothers of those who died in the struggle for independence.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I join with Deputy MacEoin in offering my heartiest congratulations to the Minister on the introduction of this measure. We have been awaiting its introduction for some time. Representatives here who are members of the Old I.R.A. will always welcome any improvement in the position of their comrades or their comrades' dependents. That is only as itshould be. We trust that if the time comes when there will be no Old I.R.A. men here in this House our successors will look after their dependents also and I am sure that when that day comes those who succeed us here will have an even greater regard for their forebears who fought for and won the independence of our country.

I am sure that many Deputies feel as I do: nothing the Minister could do would be too much. I admit that no matter what he does we will press him to do a little more. I had many interviews with the Minister and with his colleagues in connection with these matters and both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance have gone a long way to meet us in this Bill. We would be very ungrateful if we failed to appreciate their efforts.

Speaking for myself and those of the Old I.R.A. whom I represent, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for this Bill and, like Deputy MacEoin, I congratulate the Minister on obtaining such concessions from Finance. I am sure everybody welcomes the increase in the allowances to relatives of deceased persons with pre-Truce service. It is time something substantial was done for those people. No doubt the annual allowance of £250 to widows and £180 to parents will go a good way towards making up for past neglect. It is very difficult for the layman to understand the implications of these things at a glance.

Mr. S. Collins

It is not one bit easier for the lawyer.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

It must be easier. Any man with three or four years' legal training must have no difficulty whatever.

Mr. S. Collins

It is not one bit easier.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

The layman must take down nine different Acts, examine them himself and ferret out their meaning.

Mr. Traynor

And each Act is as complicated as this Act is.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

This is more complicated than any of those that went before it. I am very glad to get an opportunity of examining these Acts and I hope I will have an opportunity of examining them on a few more occasions in order to further improve the lot of the Old I.R.A. and their dependents. The position is very difficult for the layman who has no legal training and I think that in such Acts as this one there should be a marginal synopsis explaining specific references to former Acts. For example, in this Act there is a reference to No. 6 of 1923, to Section 10 of 1932 and so on. In order to co-relate the various Acts one must take them all down and examine them in relation to this Act. If this Bill has to be reprinted I suggest the Minister should keep my suggestion in mind so that Deputies would be facilitated in getting down to work with greater dispatch.

Part II of this measure is long overdue, but better late than never. We appreciate the fact that it is introduced even at this late hour. The same applies to Part III. There are a few points to which I would like to direct the Minister's attention but, before doing so, I would not like the House to do anything in relation to this Bill which would delay its implementation.

Mr. S. Collins

I do not think any one will do that.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

If we are to give the benefit of this Bill to people who have been waiting for it for a long time, then we should not do anything to delay it. In going through the Bill we may find that there can be improvements made in it or that there are people who have been left out. If we find that, then I think the remedy would be another Bill rather than that any delay should occur in connection with this Bill. The greatest tribute that we can pay to the Minister and to the people whose lot in life this Bill is aimed to improve is to expedite its passage through this House, and to get it through all its stages with the least possible delay.

I propose, therefore, to be very brief in what I have to say about it. I approve heartily of the Bill, of everypart and section of it. I am worried, however, about the award of final pensions. We have cases like this. A man got an award or a temporary pension many years ago, maybe for a wound in the leg or the hand, or something like that. His condition improved after a few years' treatment. Then he lost his pension, especially if he was under the 80 per cent. class. I am referring mostly to people with between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. disability. He lost his pension. As time went on, his condition became a bit worse and he made a further application. He was called up for further examination, and the court found that they could give him a final award of 15/- or £1 a week. This man rather than be coming up and down, took his final award under Section 26 of the 1937 Act. His case is closed. I do not know what his position is now. As far as I know he is locked out. He gets the pro rata increase from £1 to £1 10s. a week less the amount of the increase he got in 1949. I do not think that the marriage dates apply to him or that he can get the marriage pension which would mean 4/- or 5/- per week more. It would probably mean that, in certain circumstances, in the case of his death, his widow or dependents would benefit to some extent. I would like if the Minister would give us some information on this matter of final awards.

Part II deals as generously as we can expect at the moment with what is set out there. Everyone was glad to hear the Minister's statement with regard to the recent case of the officer in the Air Corps. It got a lot of publicity. I am very glad that fairly generous provision is being made here. Of course, we will always complain that more generous provision should be made for our comrades and their dependents when we examine the provision that is being made. If Deputies turn to page 13 they will see that in Sections 27 and 29 there is really the same provision made for the dependents of the Air Corps officer as for the dependents of I.R.A. officers. We cannot grumble at what is being done but we would like to see more done. We can only hope that the Bill will be put into operation as soon as possible.

I am worried about another class,those who come under Section 12 of the 1946 Act. Section 12 of that Act provides a pension for aggravation— that is to say in the case of Old I.R.A. men and members of the Defence Forces who had some bodily weakness on entering the Forces, and whose service contributed to, or aggravated that weakness to a certain extent. They become eligible for a pension for aggravation. That is excellent. I see in Section 36 of the Second Schedule that this rate of pension is to be increased by 50 per cent. That is very welcome indeed, but there is no marriage pension for that class.

The Old I.R.A. man or the ex-Army man of the present day who is in that class is not entitled to a marriage pension under this Bill. I regret that very much. I do not want to hold up the Bill in any way, but I would ask the Minister to look into that. If we cannot do anything to improve that position in this Bill, I hope it will not be long until we have another Bill in which we can do it. I can say, as regards Old I.R.A. men, that not one of them was ever examined by a doctor. It did not matter what the man's condition was, he went off and did his duty anyhow. In the case of the Army, of course, there is a doctor's examination but in the time of emergency that is likely to be hurried too. We know that, even in the best hospitals, doctors are not always able to diagnose the illness a person is suffering from. I know plenty of cases myself of people going from doctor to doctor and from hospital to hospital trying to find out what they were suffering from. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that in the rush associated with an emergency, men joined the Army without being thoroughly examined. At the time, they may have been suffering from some little weakness of the heart or the lung which was subsequently aggravated by Army service. They now find themselves in the position of being in a different class of disability pensions from all others. The only fault I have to find with the Bill is that people have been left out. I hope at some future date they will be brought in.

There is no doubt that the concessions made by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance in Part V with regard to the special allowances are generous. We all welcome the increase in the special allowances. Even more than the actual increase, we welcome the improvement in the method of calculating means. I was very glad to hear the Minister's reference to the improvement in the Joint Directions. That is a matter we all appreciate very much. There are old sores that have been troubling us, since the 1946 Act especially. Some of them have been in existence since 1943. We are very glad that they are remedied now to a great extent.

We are glad also to note that the date for application for medals is being extended by a further year after the passing of this Bill. I said here on a previous occasion—the Minister did not appreciate it very much at the time, I am sure—that I thought there should be no time limit to applications for service or disability pensions because, even in 1953, applicants are coming along for pensions that they were entitled to under the 1924 Act and the 1934 Act, that is, 29 years afterwards. It would be a pity if one of our soldiers, one of our great men, turns up from New Zealand or Australia in ten years' time and finds that he is precluded from obtaining a service pension, a service medal, a disability pension or a special allowance. Will not that be just too bad?

I may not find many to agree with me but I feel that there should not be a time limit to an application for what is a man's right, for what he earned hard in time of great danger. The more often the time limit is extended, the more I welcome it.

I am very glad to see that a man or woman need not wait for an entire 12 months to have any special case in connection with a special allowance reviewed. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where a special allowance was refused on the grounds of means or on the grounds that the person was not incapable of self-support, and so on, and it was found, after two, three or perhaps five months,that the position of the person concerned became much worse, both as to means and health, and there was no remedy, no way in which the person could get the allowance that was due because he had been locked out under the previous Act for a period of 12 months after the date of the decision.

I am glad to see that under this Bill, in certain circumstances, a person will be able to have a decision of that kind reconsidered and that in the event of a person dying while the case is being considered his widow will be able to collect the allowance due from the date of the award to the date of his death.

I had a peculiar case of that kind last year. A man applied for a special allowance and, as usually happens, it took some time before the application was considered. It was investigated and an award was made. Unfortunately, the man died before the benefit of the award reached him. He left a widow and a very young family. Naturally, I thought his widow, who was in poor circumstances, would be able to collect the amount due to him between the date of the award and the date of his death. I found, to my surprise, that there was no legal way in which that could be paid. Arrangements are made under this Bill for cases somewhat like that but not exactly like that and if a similar case occurs, where a man dies between the date of his application and the date when the money should be payable, the widow will not be able to collect under this Bill. Possibly, one or two words inserted in Section 44 would ensure that such a sad case as I have related would not occur again.

I have examined the Bill carefully. I am very satisfied with it, apart from the few criticisms I have made. I welcome it heartily. I congratulate the Minister and I beg of the House, if they want to be fair to the people whom this Bill is intended to assist, to pass all stages with the least possible delay.

Mr. S. Collins

In the general spirit of unanimity that surrounds measures such as this, it is right that the Minister should be commended for the particular framework of this Bill. I havea number of criticisms to make but I make them in a spirit of endeavouring to improve the Bill rather than in a spirit of criticism as such.

It can safely be said that when it comes to a question of dealing with the dependents of those who fought either in 1916, pre-truce or subsequently, this House has arrived at the frame of mind that we give unequivocal support to any Minister who wishes to ameliorate their lot. This Bill is a substantial measure of improvement but cannot be described as an optimum Bill in its improvement any more than the previous patchwork legislation of this nature. I will be honest and say that, in the present situation, I think the Minister has succeeded in wresting a substantial sum from the Department of Finance. Like my colleague from West Cork, Deputy O'Sullivan, I feel that we can say that we appreciate the increases granted in Part II of the Bill. We all know perfectly well that they are a long time overdue. In the fuller appreciation of our own democratic institutions, we should be coming to the knowledge that it would be impossible for us to measure in a monetary way the effort and the sacrifice made by that particular generation at that time to make possible in fact the very type of legislation we are now passing. As I have said on previous measures of this nature, these people deserve nothing but the best and the most generous treatment that this House can give them, and that goes for all sides of the House irrespective of Party affiliation or of whatever differences may have existed. We have reached the stage where we are now conscious of the extent of the debt that this nation as a whole owes to these people irrespective of what side they may have been on. I think the Minister has taken a very substantial step forward.

We are going to be in serious difficulties in regard to this Bill because the legislation by reference which abounds in it has made complicated legislation more complicated. The Military Service Pension Acts suffer from one extraordinary chronic disease, that they get more and more difficult as each appears and there is no such thing as even a reasonablechance of co-ordination between the Acts. I think the Minister would be well advised for the purpose of expedition in dealing with this Bill to provide such a memorandum as has been suggested by Deputy MacBride that would give an indication of the section of an Act that is amended and what the gross improvement in each pension is by virtue of the amendment. That would give a very clear and simple picture to Deputies when they want to know, as in the main we want to know, what the difference will be to Patsy Murphy or Mike McCarthy under this Bill. The problem presented to Deputy O'Sullivan and myself is that we will be asked what increase some of our constituents have got under this Bill, whether it amounts to 5/-, 10/- or £1. To try to ferret that out in present circumstances is far from easy.

I can inform the Minister quite honestly that as far as those on this side of the House are concerned we will in no way impede the expeditious passage of this Bill; we will in no way try to deter the good work which can be done under the Bill. Of course Deputy O'Sullivan will appreciate that the Bill contains a clause as a result of which, even if we were to delay the passage of this Bill for the purpose of improving it or effecting certain ameliorations, the effect will not be on the individuals waiting for the benefits because the Bill provides that they will receive the increases from the 1st of January this year.

For the purpose of helping himself in the passage of this Bill and of making it easier for Deputies interested in Army pension problems, I suggest that the Minister should prepare some kind of memorandum setting out in simple column fashion the Act, the section of the Act, the change made by the new Bill, and the net increase in pensions resulting therefrom. That will solve many of the problems which will arise in the minds of people dealing with Old I.R.A. organisations and Old I.R.A. applicants. It would not be impossible to do that. We will then find ourselves in a better position effectively to help theMinister on the Committee Stage because I can appreciate that we will not know at any stage what specific type of case is covered. There are hard luck cases, borderline cases and strangely enough, many cases of the type referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan, of an applicant for a special allowance having died between the period of application and the ultimate decision.

In that case the Minister would be well advised to take the advice offered by Deputy O'Sullivan and I would press on him to amend the Bill if it is necessary. I am not convinced that that is not completely covered in the section as it stands but, if it is necessary, I would press the Minister to make the necessary amendment to ensure that no administrative delay will cause a family to suffer hardship because, in the ultimate analysis, any period which elapses between the date of the application and the ultimate award is a period of administrative delay. It may not be an unnecessary or unreasonable delay but it is really an administrative delay and that should not be allowed to operate to victimise any person who might have benefited if such delay had not occurred.

Taking the Bill in its application to Old I.R.A., we feel a sense of gratification, a sense of making a decent and overdue gesture towards them. In particular, I think the Minister has been most effective with regard to the special allowances and the means assessment in relation to special allowances. I take the view that where allowances are made to people in this category there should not be any type of means investigation or any kind of means test. My feeling is that where circumstances have so impoverished one of that noble surviving few to the extent of having to be an applicant for a special allowance we should certainly not humiliate him by any type of means test or means investigation; when I say that in my opinion any kind of means test in relation to this category of persons is odious, I am saying it not in the spirit of taking from the Minister's achievement and what he has been able to do but I am saying it in the honest belief myself that such a class of people are not only exceptional —we know they were because theywere virtually the foundation stone on which the freedom of this Parliament and the independence of this Republic is built—but apart from being that, they are a class of people who are getting fewer and fewer and year after year our advance in the consciousness of our debt to them becomes more and more apparent. I do feel that as a class those people should not be sub-pect to any type of means test that would in any way diminish what this House would like to give them, because, God knows, if it is at its extreme highest the special allowance under these Acts is a poor recompense indeed to those people for the effort and sacrifices that they made at a time when there were many found wanting when effort and sacrifice were asked for.

We have to face realities and I know the Minister has done the best he could and as such he will get full commendation from me. I feel that the people who are recipients of this particular benefit will appreciate this particular amelioration. I think that whole particular facet of the Bill is the most praiseworthy part of it. I, not being of that generation, can only stand and pay tribute and offer what assistance I can and what support I can in this House to the improvement of their lot, but I do intend to deal rather deliberately and maybe more critically with those parts of the Bill that relate to the pensions and allowances of serving officers and the parts of the Bill that are really applicable to the Army of to-day. I feel, as I said, and I am saying, in passing from the parts of the Act that deal with the overdue benefits by way of increase for relations of the signatories of the Proclamation, or for people with pre-Truce service or for the other various categories that the Minister has covered so fully, before passing from that I feel I should add my voice of appreciation that that insurmountable barrier, the 12 months' review period, has been in some way softened to allow the Minister in very special circumstances, different power to review. I feel we have been inclined all along to be over rigid in statutory limits and dates and in time effect in relation to that typeof pension, and I think the Minister might consider—as he indicated he would consider on the previous Act when it went through this House—the question of leaving out altogther the question of date for applicants for service pensions or medals now.

I would like to say that I feel exactly the same as my colleague feels, that if any fortuitous circumstances were to bring back to this country here somebody who had been of national service, somebody who had served in 1916 or in the pre-Truce period, if his circumstances put him in the position that he wanted to apply at any time before he died for any service medal or service pension or service certificate or any benefit under these Acts there should be no such thing as a date barrier. It is not very likely that there will be in the years to come very many such appearing on the scene. But my recollection of the Minister's discussion with us on the Military Service Bill was that he had also in mind the question of the date, whether he would extend it for six months or 12 months. My idea would be that you would reach finality in the Bill by not putting in the date at all. If somebody came along from some far-flung part of the world who might have been forced by the circumstances of the times or might have been forced by the very endangerment of his own life to fly his country—if he should come back in the five or six years remaining in which he might be likely to return and want to seek any benefit to which he might be entitled under this code of military service or disability pensions, I do not think there should be a date barrier there.

But with regard to the people that this House must concern itself with more at the moment I have to be highly critical of the present Bill. It is true if you look at it on the basis of pounds alone that the specific case referred to by the Minister of the Army Air Corps officer looks as if a good amelioration was made there. I regret to have to say and to put on record in this House that I think it is totally and absolutely inadequate. I do not believe that the Minister in his efforts could have done better. I am not criticisinghim for doing the best he could but I am going to ask this House if it is reasonable that we had put an officer of the Defence Forces of this country in some category less than we put the civil servants of this country, who are equally servants of this State and if I might suggest it initially servants of the State in a service far less risky than would normally attach to that of the soldier. The position is quite clear. While the improvement of the situation from appallingly bad to slightly better where the widow and six children of that officer are concerned, may be welcome, it is not anything like adequate in the circumstances and not comparable to what a widow of a civil servant in the same circumstances with the same type of service would have been entitled to. The figures are simple. Most Deputies in this House have from time to time got literature in connection with that specific case, but in the circumstances of the case the position that exists is that if the late Captain Billy Ryan had been a civil servant his widow and six children would be in the position to-day vis-á-visthe situation, that instead of getting £336 she would be entitled to £561. Is that some method of encouragement to the fine type of young man attracted into the Irish Army to continue in pursuit of that type of a career? I agree that it is a good thing to see this unfortunate woman in her circumstances get even an increase of £150, but that increase should be related to some reality and the whole question of the state of the Army and the pensions that Army officers and widows and children should get has not been put in its proper perspective.

I do not see any reason why this particular branch of service to the State in this country should be considered any less than other branches of service and I do not see why we should offer greater security to the widows and orphans of normal civil servants than we should offer to the widows and children of people who elect to serve in what I consider one of the highest branches of service. Whether it be in the Army, or the Air Corps, they are in an integral part of our defence unit.

There are many cases that have occurred in our experience where we find widows and children of very high-ranking officers who gave long and continuous service to the State and who died in the service of the State, and where the circumstances of the death of the husband have reduced the family to virtual penury. I can think of cases of highly qualified technical men, men of immense technical skill, whose untimely demise left their families in circumstances of very acute poverty. We find the widows of some of these officers, in receipt as they are of very limited pensions, endeavouring to supplement these pensions by entering employment themselves and suffering the consequence of a diminution of pension to its virtual extinction if they earn anything at all. There is nothing in this Bill to ameliorate that situation.

I do not for a moment concede that the approach to this Bill and to the construction of a pension scheme for these people is right. It has, to my mind, some archaic precedent behind it. It could only have been conceived from some book of Civil Service precedents. It certainly could not have been conceived from any practical approach to the real situation. I am getting sick and tired of this comparative basis, under which a civilian occupation for some reason or another in the service of the State ranks infinitely higher than that of people serving in our Defence Forces. If we are honest and genuine in our praise for our Defence Forces, if we consider it as a worthwhile service, we should not be confined to, as I describe them deliberately, archaic precedents on which to base the structure of a pension design for Army officers. I want to know from the Minister from where he got that particular conception. I want to know does the Minister or his advisers appreciate the fact that the cost of maintenance of a child to-day is something that cannot be measured, as it was at one time, in terms of £25 or £30? When one talks of the reimbursement of expenditure necessary for the education of children, one is not talking in any realistic term when one talks of an increase from £30 to £60. I know, from practical experiencemyself of trying to provide educational facilities of a not unreasonable order for one son who is only about eight years of age, that the fees for that alone will run to a figure of somewhere between £120 and £140. I do not think that it would be proper that any child who has lost its parents in the service of this country should be deemed to be entitled to anything less in the way of educational facilities than I can offer to a son of mine. Using that as a comparative basis, I feel that there has been some discrimination that is not in favour of the non-civilian personnel.

We have had a lot of argument in this House over the years about the overloading of our Defence Forces with civilian personnel and civil attachments. I can see the whole effect of this overloading in the conception of the pensions designed in this Bill. That discrimination still remains. I am raising my voice not in criticism of the Bill; I am raising my voice in criticism of the discrimination that is there for which the Minister is not responsible. It is time that we faced up to the fact that while we pay on the one hand eulogistic tributes to the Army, the service it has given to the State and the standard and calibre of its personnel, when it comes to securing for the particular body so described, parity at least with other State servants we find that sympathetic consideration is sadly lacking.

Ask ourselves the straightforward question if we want to come to a logical conclusion on the issue of the Air Corps officer which was raised in this House: Is there any man in this House who can honestly say that £336 a year is a reasonable figure for the widow and six children of a captain of eight years' standing in the Army to live on? Is there anybody here who is going to contend, even though the amelioration is to the extent of £150 a year under this Bill, that it is anything like adequate? A sum of £336 a year is approximately £6 5s. per week. Is that sufficient in the circumstances of modern times to maintain a widow and six children? It is true to say that it is infinitely better than the £3 10son which they were existing prior to this but take that in the light of the fact that if Captain Ryan had chosen to enter the Civil Service and had secured a job of a non-hazardous type in the service, carrying on an avocation that would not have put him in the danger which was ultimately to cost him his life, and if he had died in the service, his widow and children would have a few pounds short of £600 a year. In other words, they would have a 45 per cent. amelioration on the present improved situation.

Let us face reality. Are we in earnest in driving for recruitment to the Army and in advertising for technical personnel, be it in the medical service, the dental service, the engineering corps or the Air Corps, when we allow this discrimination to appear in the basic pensions payable in the event of dependency eventuating at any untimely age for the families of these officers?

Let us look at the schedule of pensions payable to the widows of N.C.O.s and men. Let us look at the pensions proposed under this Act for the children of N.C.O.s and men. All we can say is that they are better than nothing. I am not making any carping criticism of the Minister in this matter. We all know that the present occupant of the post has always been sympathetic and has always made a conscientious effort to meet any case made relevant to either the I.R.A. or the Army. It is time we realised, however, that this Bill has some gross inadequacies in it. Even though we welcome it as a step forward, even though we are commendatory in relation to the concessions the Minister has been able to make with regard to pensions granted to people by virtue of service in 1916 or pre-Truce and in relation to improvements under the special allowances scheme, it must be understood that this will be the framework and the structure upon which the Army, which may not be called upon to make sacrifices such as were made in the War of Independence, will find its pension code based. It would be no justification for us because there is an amelioration offered here to fail in our duty to point out the discriminationthat exists as between various branches of the service.

I do not think it is right that the Dáil should allow to go unchallenged the placing of officers, N.C.O.s and men of the Defence Forces in any category lower than that in which other State servants are placed in relation to the basic conception of a pensions scheme founded on service to the State as such. Theirs is an occupation fraught with many dangers, not only dangers arising through war and the incidents of war but dangers arising in the normal course of their duties when dealing with new equipment or when engaged in experimentation in the normal course of field training and other training involving them in risk not normal to the more sedentary occupation of the ordinary civil servant.

Is there any hope that we may arrive at a stage in which the widow of an Army officer who seeks and obtains employment will not thereby have her pension butchered by the Department of Finance? Why should the instinctive desire of a mother to improve the position of her children by obtaining work and earning money towards that worthy object be reflected in a reduction of the pension to which she is entitled?

There is an advantage of considerable consequence under this Bill and for that reason we do not propose to retard the progress of this measure in any way. I am merely sounding a warning note, not only to the present Minister but to whoever may succeed him, that there is discrimination and a system of assessment that I personally dislike in relation to Army pensions. I am sure that those people who have had experience in the Defence Forces know that that discrimination is causing unrest. There is a certain amount of odium attaching to the situation and there is a battle between the civilian and the Army personnel in the Department of Defence.

We cannot tolerate the situation in which one group of State servants earning salaries of £900 per annum andanother group of State servants earning similar salaries are entitled by some queer twist of fate to a completely different pensions scale. In this case to which reference was made by both the Minister and myself the discrimination amounts to £336 per year. Had this officer gone into the Civil Service and moved with Civil Service regularity from desk to desk his widow and her six children would to-day be receiving £581 per year. There is something wrong in a conception of pensions that allows that diametrically opposite approach with regard to Civil Service and Army personnel.

Mr. MacCarthy

There is also £60 given for the education of the children.

Mr. S. Collins

The total sum this woman will receive, including the amelioration under this Act, will be £336 a year. Had the Minister not given that amelioration the position would be much worse. Not one of these children is yet 11. Their ages range from one year to eight years.

Mr. MacCarthy

I am aware of that.

Mr. S. Collins

The discrimination and differentiation that exist are not conductive to the best interest of the Defence Forces. Under this Act we are being given an opportunity of airing our opinions.

As an ex-Army officer who had the privilege of standing with the colours, I have got the opportunity of voicing a sense of grievance which I have knowledge of, and which I feel certain Army officers labour under. It would be impossible on the Second Reading of this Bill—I am afraid it is going to be very nearly impossible on the Committee Stage unless we have the assistance of the monumental industry of our friend, Deputy Cowan—to try and work out what effects dates in certain Acts are going to have on pension ameliorations suggested in this Bill. The whole system of Army Pension Orders, and the regulation of pensions within the Army, is a difficult and complicated one. We find a situation such as this, that a man who left in 1946, with maximum service, is in a differentposition from the man who left the Army in 1948, not with maximum service but because he got the benefit of some increase that may have occurred in the meantime. His pension is in a different category from that of the man who went out before him. You have a complete jumble of pension rates and pension awards which are adjudged by three different factors: date, rank and length of service.

I have been with the Minister before this Bill came in, and I am nearly sure it does not cover the case of officers who may have retired just prior to the operative date of this Act with the maximum service of their rank. By virtue of the fact that, having served the maximum service laid down in their rank and because of the circumstances of the time—either seeing no prospect of an improvement in rank or no prospect of a continuation of service—they may have left the Forces, even though they had, in fact, given the maximum service laid down by the Acts and the maximum service in their rank and may be precluded by virtue of the date from the ameliorations now contemplated.

The whole system of pensions within the Army is, to my mind, a bad one. I would have welcomed this Bill in a different form. I would have welcomed it as a Bill to give immediate effect to the money improvements which the Bill desires to give to sections of the community. I would like to have seen Army pensions, the code of Army pensions and the whole conception of a code of permanency, dealt with in the way that we are gradually dealing with the permanent Act for the Army. I would like to see all that dealt with by a general Committee of the House, a Committee which would be anxious to design a type of Bill that would have, maybe, a solid foundation, and at the same time a fluidity that could be adapted to changing circumstances rather than have a continuation as we are going to have, of piecemeal legislation with regard to Army pensions and disability.

We are gradually moving out of the era where the awards under the Military Service Pensions Acts, and thedisability flowing therefrom, will be non est.Where the Army itself is concerned, we should be busy conceiving and designing a permanent type of Pensions Bill as a corollary to the permanent Army Bill, as distinct from this type of legislation by reference, pension amendments by statutory Orders, and the various other types of devices that are used in regard to date, service or rank to complicate the issue.

I am quite deliberate in saying that I regard the whole general approach by the Department of Defence—by the civilian branch of the Army—to the question of pensions for the Army as being a glorious example of lack of initiative and of up to dateness with the times. It appals me that out of the blue, virtually, in a Civil Service oven a thought is baked of an Army pension cake. I feel that this is something that should be conceived differently. In my opinion, the masters of the issue should be the public representatives and the Minister in the Dáil. They are the people who should be able to design a scheme in an equitable way. You will get no sense of gratification from the general Army personnel when they appreciate the fact that they are not being put in a category commensurate with their colleagues in the normal Civil Service of the country. I am going to keep stressing that on every opportunity in the future when it arises, and so we have to get away from the conception of the hierarchy in the Department of Defence. We get all kinds of queer twists with the most amazing results from that Department. Anybody who, over a period of years, has tried to construe the regulations issued under Army Pay Orders or under the various types of amending Orders that come through will appreciate the fact that the whole system is chaotic, and that there is no fundamental basic principle on which the general fabric is built: that, apparently, there are minds that operate in conceiving and executing plans for Army pensions that see the soldier and the officer and the serving personnel of the Army as somewhat different types of beings from the normal human being. For some reason or anotherthey seem to put these in a different category.

We have had instances of that before. We had, as a basis in the Army before, pay and allowances and certain other types of emoluments. Now, the Department of Finance, penny pinching and copper paring as usual, has conceived a new system whereby they are going to exclude certain of these types of emoluments that would previously have been construed as earned income for pension purposes. They are being shorn off. They have conceived a new system. We are up against that problem. It is coming up against the ordinary person in the Army year after year. It is time that a protest was made against it. I am making the protest now, but not in any spirit of criticism of this Bill because in many of its facets the Bill is doing a most commendable job, a job which commends itself to this House in a unanimous way, and one that suffers from only one lack so far as this House is concerned, where certain ameliorations and improvements are being granted to people to whom this State owes an unlimited debt. We say to the Minister "well done." Our only regret is that you were not able to do better. We appreciate the stringency and exigencies of the present circumstances. While we say that in a spirit of commendation to the Minister, I have said what I have said with regard to the Regular Army personnel and the conception of pensions for the Regular Army personnel because I feel it is time somebody said it. I was glad to get the opportunity to say it, honoured as I was to be formerly a colleague of many of those people now serving. I have said it as an ex-Army officer. It is time we got down to the basic conception, in dealing with pension schemes, that the Army officer is certainly no worse than anybody, if not better than most.

Major de Valera

In regard to this Bill generally, I think the tributes that have been paid to the Minister in regard to the effort that he put into this whole question of pensions, in this Bill and the previous Bill and in regard to his achievement, are welldeserved and I would like to join in them.

In so far as this Bill deals with I.R.A. service representations have been made by men like Deputy O'Sullivan, who have more intimate knowledge and a better right to talk than I, and I would content myself with saying, in general terms, I would agree with the views of Deputies like Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Colley.

There is one aspect of this Bill that I would like to refer to specifically, without taking up the time of the House. It is in regard to pensions for serving soldiers. To a large extent I can express a certain sympathy, in fact, in some regards, sympathy that goes a long way, with what Deputy Séan Collins has said but I am afraid that Deputy Collins has rather overstated matters in some directions and I do not think it helps if we do not get facts accurately.

It is true that there has been a tendency in the past to leave, say, the Army, and I would group with that some other branches of State servants, in a relatively disadvantageous position vis-á-visother parts of the State service. That involves a whole question in itself which I do not propose to go into but, in this particular regard, we would want to be quite clear at the outset, when making comparisons between the position of the civil servant and the position of an Army officer, what the facts are because, quite frankly, I think that the case for the Army and the case for Army dependency is so strong on its own legs that to anchor it to the other case is completely distorting the picture.

As I understand the position in regard to civil servants on the one hand, I am not aware that civil servants automatically get pensions but I am aware that, in one particular case at any rate, in the case of flying risk, that is, where a civil servant in the course of duty is killed as a result of an air accident, there is a pension paid to his widow substantially in excess of what would be paid in the case of an Army officer. That point is important but it is not the whole case by any means. I think we would be much safer and much nearer to fundamental truth if we look at this, as I tried topresent it here before, in two separate stages and avoid getting confused between the two issues: one, the question of what I may call normal superannuation or normal pension and, the other, the question of pension or payment of an abnormal nature resulting from death or disablement from a particular risk attaching to the employment. If we got that clear, we would get a little bit further.

Incidentally, before I go on to deal with some details of this, I would like to say that Deputy Collins has been rather hard on the civil officers of the Department. I can talk with a little bit of experience of this case and I think that in these matters the Minister's officers have indeed been sympathetic and have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to get a scheme conformable with the whole requirements and the whole frame of the Act. In fairness, that should be said. It was not for lack of sympathy on their part. Secondly, I am glad to be able to say that I think there was an equal sympathy in the case of the Department of Finance. Although I, amongst others, have said rather hard things about them on other occasions I think it is only fair and just that in this particular case it should be appreciated by Deputies that it was not for lack of sympathy that there are any shortcomings in this Bill, but rather from the point of view of the overall problem that the Department of Defence had to meet, in the first instance, and secondly, the problem the Department of Finance had to meet from the overall point of view of pensions.

That remark has a direct bearing on the approach I am making, namely, I can see straight away the difficulties that confront the Administration in providing what I might call normal pensions or normal superannuation. We provide them in the Army. We provide them in certain branches of the State service. As I understand it, there are other categories where they are not provided and a certain balance has to be hit there. That thought should be borne in mind and, with that thought in mind, as far as Section 27 of this Bill is concerned, with certain comments I will make, I cannot helpbut feel that the Minister and his officers certainly did display, to say the least of it, sympathy and that, much as it may come short of what we all would like to see, in regard to that there has been a certain achievement.

It is with regard to the effect of Section 25, mainly, that I would join issue with the Minister. I can see in this Bill—in fact I am very gratified to see—that there has been an acceptance, so it appears to me, of the principle of something in excess for fatal accident or fatal injuries arising in the course of duty. In other words, Section 25 provides something in the nature of the insurance scheme that I was pressing for before but, frankly, I think a little bit more is needed and that something over and above the provisions merely of a Pensions Act is needed in regard to the Army in this regard.

While we should have what I may call the basic pensions or basic allowances which operate in the normal way in accordance with Section 27, which amends previous enactments, and while these are necessarily related both to the question of relative emoluments during life in other portions of the State service and the way that the people in the State service are treated afterwards, there are a large number of State servants who, if they were in that particular comparable category and there was any question of an accident, it is a year's salary they would get and no pension. All these things, I can conceive, and I think every fairminded person will allow, are things that have to be weighed by the Ministers concerned and by their officers to try to get an equitable scheme over the whole lot. For that reason that is not the avenue of approach to this problem which has been agitating a number of us in regard to people killed in the course of duty. You should have that and, over and above that, there should be adequate insurance provision against special risks.

As I tried to impress on the Minister before—I gladly acknowledge that to some extent the principle has been admitted and accepted in Section 25— most specifically you have this kind ofrisk involved in the case of the Air Corps. The risk to an officer flying on any training or operational activity is such (a) as to bring necessarily with it a relatively high risk of fatal injury and (b) of necessity is a risk which is to all intents and purposes uninsurable. In other words, an ordinary insurance company will not cover that risk. It will be an excepted risk in any normal policy.

Without going back on the whole question as to what the risk pay is for, the plain fact is that what would be involved in the purchase of an insurance policy to cover these matters on that basis, even if it were accumulated as such, would be an insignificant amount to meet such a contingency. There is the further fact which I have stressed that, quite apart from provision for dependents, we cannot forget the personal aspect of the flying officer concerned. In my opinion, he is entitled to some extra remuneration personally for merely taking the risk. But, however you look at the picture, he is uninsurable for just that particular risk and therefore I think the State should provide, in some form or another, an insurance scheme which would provide adequate insurance looked at from the point of view of the man who, in ordinary civilian employment, would be able to provide for himself. I know there is a certain weakness in what I am saying. There are very few, I suppose, in the category below £1,000 a year who would be able to provide for themselves a pension say of £300 a year. But even so, looking at it from the point of view of the encouragement of morale and so forth, I see the need for some insurance scheme that will provide, say, 50 per cent. of the emoluments of the person undertaking the risk or something like that.

Section 25 goes a certain way towards it. But, while conscious of the fact that it may seem even a little ungenerous on my part when I know the real effort that has been put in by the Minister and certain officials in his Department and the Department of Finance, I still feel that it is there where some amendment is needed. Iwould go so far as to suggest that it would be reasonable in all the circumstances, and I make this concrete suggestion to the Minister, to increase the percentage in Section 25 to 50 per cent.; that, in fact, it would involve very little excess expenditure to the State. We have had a number of years' experience from an actuarial point of view to assess what would be, so to speak, the average risk to the community in the matter of payment in the case of such fatal accidents. As far as I can see the picture, it would not be a big risk. Therefore, the total sum payable would be small looked at from the point of view of the Exchequer, though it would be large looked at from the point of view of the individual.

I know the Minister will appreciate the spirit in which this is being put to him. He knows that we appreciate the efforts that were made to meet the problem. I very much appreciate that the argument that we put forward in regard to insurance over and above what I might call normal superannuation or pension would appear to have been generously accepted in spite, shall I say, of the somewhat belligerent way in which this matter was put on occasions. But you have here in Section 27 a basic provision which I think in all the circumstances is not unreasonable.

In regard to the risk element, I cannot see that it would involve the State in any great expenditure and it would mean all the difference for morale in the future if the provision were increased to 50 per cent. I make that concrete suggestion now. Remember what being killed in the course of duty means. Take the case of an air officer killed on operational or training duties. That is one typical case, the case which has been most forced on us. Examine the frequency of these accidents in the past in this country, examine the liability in the light of my proposal, examine each case in the light of that proposal, and you will find that there is an insignificant sum from the point of view of the overall expenditure involved. Furthermore, you would surely be able to get statistics of the frequency of fatal accidents in relation tooperational flights across the water. I think you will find that in relation to the number of flights the ratio is not high. If you see in the papers that some aeroplane has crashed it may be frightening at first sight, but if you take the frequency of fatal accidents against the frequency of operational flights, the ratio might not be any higher than the ratio we have here in this country. Certainly on the basis of the ratio that we have here one cannot make the case that it would be unduly expensive to provide for such personnel on the basis which I suggest. It would mean a great deal if that were done and, to my mind, it would be an infinitely preferable way of doing it from the overall State point of view.

Anyone who has looked into the problem must appreciate the very difficult sequence of problems that must of necessity have faced the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence and their principal officers. Although Deputy Collins and I and other Deputies on this particular Bill will have a good case and an unanswerable case, we must not forget that there will be other ones and that arguments as to fairness and so forth may come in in regard to other categories. The Government has to hold the balance and the Department of Finance, as the custodian of the public purse, must hold the balance. That is why I repeat that my emphasis would be on Section 25 rather than on Section 27.

However, I made that point. I think it would cost the State relatively little. It would mean a great deal for people who are already in unfortunate circumstances as coming within the provisions of these sections. It would to my mind mean a great deal to our Army. The risks involved are not great. It only dealt with the question of the Air Corps and perhaps I went off my track a bit. Another type of risk which fortunately we do not normally come across—we had one or two cases during the emergency and anybody who has had to deal with these matters will realise what these risks are—was the case of a mine explosion when men were killed and seriously disabled. They are fortunately of infrequent occurrence, and again,actuarially you will find that the risk there is not great—is very small in fact. Many of us tampered with explosives and lethal weapons of that type under exceptional circumstances where one would have, at first sight, expected that the risk would be very high.

In the Army one section that was dealing with these things constantly has a very low record for any serious accident. So, again in dealing with that type of risk specifically related to this, the risk is not high. Perhaps the one that people might jib at is the transport risk, for instance the risk of a dispatch rider, the risk in the case of a motor-cyclist being killed in the course of exercises. Whether that could be covered in any way by having regard to a question of personal fault or not I do not know. I grant you that the possibilities are widened but I think it could be examined and if necessary a restriction put on to that section and in the cases I have been mentioning the cost would not be great So I make that point.

I said I thought that Section 27 was relatively all right. Now I say that with a qualification. I would like the Minister to deal with these points raised by Deputy Collins and which I am referring to now because I had not time to check on the actual facts, but I think it would be helpful to have these facts stated carefully and properly. I think the widow of a civil servant would normally get a year's pay and no pension. You can weigh that up against the provision of a pension and argue it out but I think on balance that the officers of the Department of Finance have considered all these problems, and I do not think in fairness to them they have hit a bad balance.

But in Part I of Section 27 I notice that the widows of a second lieutenant, lieutenant or captain still get £90 per annum during widowhood, while the widows of majors, lieutenant-colonels or commandants get £135 per annum during widowhood, and that the widows of colonels or officers of higher rank get £170 per annum. Unless my arithmetic is wrong, if I add £35 to the rate for the widows of majors, lieutenant-colonels or commandants I get £170. So that there is a difference of £35. Why isthere a bigger differential between the junior officers and the officers of field rank? In other words, you have a gap of £45 between the widows of second lieutenants and majors and a gap of only £35 between majors and colonels.

Quite frankly I find it rather hard to see at first sight why that differential should be there at all. Perhaps it is to be justified on the grounds that they were receiving more money before the husband's death and that should be taken into account. If that is so, I should like to make a suggestion that you could put £10 on to the widows of second lieutenants, lieutenants and captains and then you have a straight £35 difference between the two. I know that is merely playing with figures, if you like, because there is actually no really strong case to make for the actual figure. But I do think that in the case of the widows of the lieutenants or junior officers there could be an increase and if asked, I would plump for the figure of £10 increase. It would make that section look a bit better.

There is a point which I think Deputy Davern has to make in regard to that section. No doubt he will make it himself. But under 3 (b) he would like to provide for £50 for the children if the widow remarries as well as after her death in the event of her dying. I will leave that to him to argue.

In regard to officers, I would say in view of all the circumstances—and though we would all like to see better provisions there having regard to their position in the State service—the problems that have to be faced and the questions of balance are such that I think the Minister has not done too badly and it would be ungenerous not to compliment him for his efforts but I think he could still——

Mr. MacBride

——do better.

Major de Valera

Turn that £90 into £100. I am of course separating this from Section 25 where I am making my main stand. They are two separate things and I would like them to be kept separate because it is confusion betweentwo things like that that has led us into useless arguments in the past. If we can avoid confusing these two things we can perhaps get uniformity on the superannuation allowances on ordinary pension level and then we can deal with the extraordinary feature which has agitated us here so much in regard to the principle of Section 25. Whether after all it would not be better if that should not be provided extraneously from this Bill and dealt with in some scheme of the Department of Defence by saying that officers who take on a particular risk will have a special financial arrangement in regard to that apart from pensions, is a matter that might be considered. But that is a question in mechanics and I would confidently leave that to the officers of the Department if the principle were decided.

There is one thing in this section, however, that shows on the face of it, a rather startling disparity. The widow of a soldier and the dependents are very much depressed in relation to officers. I know again there is the question of the scale of remuneration, social status and so forth, but still it does seem an inadequate scale in the case of a soldier. I would just like to put this point. Personally I would like to have that scale reviewed and we will undoubtedly come back on these in the Committee Stage.

I wonder if in relation to pay we are not subconsciously or unconsciously relating our figures to wage-rates and bases of pre-war years rather than to present day conditions. It is more or less a natural thing to have happened if it did happen, but 18/9 per week to the widow of a soldier seems to be very inadequate under present circumstances, and the allowances for the children are somewhat inadequate. However, one must again watch what one is doing. They are stated to be, by the week, 7/-, roughly something under £25 a year per child. It is not as bad as it appears at first sight, but perhaps more so does the child of a soldier, than of an officer, need attention. That seems a surprising statement to make but the chances of the child of an officer facing destitution through the father's deathare not as great as in the case of the child of a soldier. I do not know how the figure of 18/9 a week was arrived at but it does seem a little bit low. However that can best be dealt with on the Committee Stage.

I think I have already detained the House unduly on this matter. I should like to conclude by saying that in regard to Army pensions generally I have been confining myself to the Army, as we have it to-day, knowing that others will deal adequately with the other points in the Bill. I am in sympathy largely with what they will advocate but I want to stress that it is necessary to make provision for the career of the officer, the N.C.O. and the man in the Army which will be fair. We must have regard to the fact that, on many scales of comparison, the pay of Army personnel is on the low side having regard to the standard that we would expect them to live up to. We must also have regard to the fact that, of course, there are specific pensionable provisions that in some regards go further than those in any other service but in some other regards, do not go so far. Having fixed that basic pattern in the best way that one can fix it, thereby hoping to get the greatest interest, the greatest efficiency and the greatest morale amongst the members of the Forces, you then have, over and above that, to provide for these extraordinary risks which are uninsurable and which are an inseparable part of the duties of the personnel concerned—in fact which are inseparable incidents from the very purpose for which they are there.

I should like to finish with this remark. I am not so sure that the provision that should be made for our regular forces in regard to training and the carrying out of their duties in anticipation of active service some day, should not be from the point of view of securing their dependents, on the same basis as active service. I think the officer, N.C.O. or man who gives his life while training himself in becoming efficient and helping the training of our Forces to become efficient in their primary task of defending this country, is entitled to the samehonour, the same appreciation and, for his dependents, the same security as any person actually killed in battle in the more immediate discharge of that duty because, in the last analysis, the duty is the same in both cases, the measure of patriotism the same and, I think, we should accord honour equally to these men.

Mr. MacBride

At the outset I should like to say that I appreciate the way in which the Minister explained the provisions of this Bill. I suppose it is inevitable that pension details of this nature should be very complicated, so complicated as to be practically unintelligible, and that they should legislate by reference to other statutes but a stage has been reached when I think the suggestion made earlier in the course of the debate should be seriously considered. I think that some explanatory memorandum in an intelligible form should, if possible, be provided so that people would know exactly where they stand without having to refer to 11 different statutes. Our pension legislation has got into such a state of confusion that I think there is no other way of dealing with it except by getting out a short booklet setting out people's rights.

It would be a help to the House if the Minister could circulate a small table setting out the existing position and the existing rates of pensions that are affected by this Bill in one column and setting out the proposed increases in another column so that one could see at a glance, without having to look back over half a dozen statutes, what the net effect of the Bill was. I appreciate that there was an explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill but, without in any way wishing to derogate from the value of the explanatory memorandum, I think it is not very much better than the Bill itself. I think the purpose of an explanatory memorandum should be to simplify matters so that you can get an idea fairly quickly of the purport and the purpose of the Bill.

The Bill, as I gather, does three different things. In the first place it extends what might be termed I.R.A.pensions to a new category of persons. In the second place it increases basically a number of pensions, Army pensions and I.R.A. pensions and thirdly it provides for increases that are not so much basic increases as increases to meet the cost of living or the depreciation in the value of money. As regards I.R.A. pensions, I must confess that I have never been very enthusiastic about our approach to this question. However, having embarked on a certain road, it is only right that we should pursue that road and include all the people who should be included. Likewise, it is fitting that the increases granted by the Bill should be granted. On the question of increases in pensions, both I.R.A. pensions and Defence Force pensions, some matters of fairly general importance arise. I do not think we have approached this question as we should approach it. Because of that, we have to introduce Bills time after time to deal with the position, usually lagging a little bit behind. I do not think I am being unfair when I say that in most of the legislation introduced in relation to pensions in order to remedy the position, one particular section of the community gets a proportionate increase while another particular section does not. In some cases the increases granted are sufficient to meet the depreciation in the value of money. In other cases the State is able to make a little bit on the side by not granting the full increases.

I do not think the increases granted as a general rule have been commensurate with the increases that have taken place in the cost of living. Remember, 1/- to-day buys about 5d. worth of goods in terms of 1939 values. In that connection, I would ask the Minister to insert a third column in preparing the table to which I have already referred setting out the value of the pension granted at the date of the passing of the legislation in terms of to-day's prices so that one would be able to see whether the increases granted maintain the status quo.If a table of that kind were prepared I think Deputies would be surprised to find in how many cases the increasesgranted fall far short of the actual depreciation in the value of money.

Our aim in dealing with pensions should be to honour the commitments of earlier Parliaments. If a pension is granted in 1923 at the rate of £x per annum, the function of subsequent Dáils should be to maintain that pension at the value of £x per annum. The only way in which we can honour the pledges given by earlier Parliaments is by relating pensions to the cost of living. That should be our general approach in relation to all pensions. Because of the fluctuations in purchasing power the simplest solution to the problem would be to anchor pensions to the cost of living so that pensions would go up or down with the rise or fall in the cost of living. It is essential that we should do that now because there is no indication that there will be any kind of economic financial stability in the world in which we live. Pensions have been anchored to the cost of living in many countries and that system has worked quite satisfactorily. It saves Parliament, the Government and officials a lot of trouble.

We should be slow to grant pensions but, once Parliament grants pensions, it is the duty of subsequent Parliaments to honour the pledge given and that can only be done by maintaining the value of the pension at the rate at which it was first granted. With regard to Army pensions proper, I endorse every word of criticism that has been levelled by Deputy S. Collins and Deputy de Valera at the provisions of this Bill. I know the Minister has tried to do his best but his best is not very hopeful.

I do not know if Deputies have studied the provisions of this Bill. I do not know if they have noticed that if a soldier is killed his widow will get 18/9 per week and each child will get 1/- per day. Could anybody feed or clothe a child on 1/- per day? Are we not insulting the Army by making an offer of a pension of that kind? The Minister will tell me that these people can draw social welfare benefits. Of course they can draw them. They could draw those had the father never gone into the Army and had he neverbeen killed in the Army. Surely we should be able to do something better for the dependents of soldiers who lose their lives in the Army. If we are ever going to have a decent Army we will have to get away from this niggardly attitude that is always adopted in connection with the Army.

Captain Cowan

We have a decent Army.

Mr. MacBride

I know we have, but we cannot get the outlook we require in the Army if we make provisions of this kind.

General MacEoin

It is a decent Army under very adverse circumstances.

Mr. MacBride

It is hypocrisy to pay lip-service to the Army and then provide 1/- per day in respect of a child whose father is killed in the Army. The Minister for Social Welfare, in reply to a question, stated that it costs £110 per year to maintain a child in a public institution. The only provision we make for a child whose father is killed in the Army is a provision of 1/- per day.

References have been made, very properly made, by Deputy Collins, Deputy MacEoin and Deputy de Valera to the position of the widow and orphans of Captain Ryan of the Air Corps.

I do not think that we can, in any way, be satisfied with the position as it is now presented to us. It is quite true that, under this Bill, the position has been improved very considerably from what it was. In this particular case, the widow and her six children will have received £336, but, as has been pointed out, if that officer, instead of being an officer in the Air Corps, had been a civil servant in receipt of the same salary, and had been killed in an air crash, the widow of that civil servant and her children would get £581. In God's name, why should the widow of an Air Corps officer receive less than the widow of a civil servant killed in similar circumstances? Should there not be some degree of uniformity in regard to all State servants, and if there is to be any disparity should thedisparity not be in favour of Army personnel and in favour of Air Corps personnel who undertake much greater risks, and who probably lead a less sheltered life than the life which some civil servants lead?

It seems to me that this is a matter that should really be seriously looked into by the Minister. No doubt the Minister would probably like to remedy the position, but it is not enough to have good intentions. Deputies on all sides of the House are agreed on that. Surely, we are the people who have some right to determine what should be done, and surely we should be able to exert our will in the matter. It should not be sufficient for the Minister to be able to say "that is all I can do." After all, we are supposed to be a fairly supreme body. We are supposed to have power over the Government, and we should be able to make our voices heard in some way so that some officials in the Department of Finance will not be able to say: "We cannot have that; we cannot allow the widows of Army officers to be put on the same level as the widows of civil servants who are killed in an accident." It is about time that we asserted ourselves a little bit and protected ourselves from that kind of red tape. It is all very well to throw bouquets at the Minister and say that he has done his level best, but, having done that, he reaches a certain point beyond which apparently he cannot go. If all sides of the House were agreed on it, could we not force the door open? We have the power to do it if we get a bit tough about it. We should not deal with it as a political question because it is not a political question.

There are two or three points that I should like to have cleared up. I understand that where the widow of an officer remarries her pension ceases. I am not quarrelling with that, but where a widow remarries what is the position with regard to the children's allowances? Do the children get an increased rate of allowance? Does the allowance remain the same, or is it reduced? Possibly, the Minister may be able to deal with that. I am not quite clear about it from reading the Bill. When the widow dies, undoubtedlythe children get an increased rate of allowance, but what is the position if she remarries?

Major de Valera

It would seem that if she remarries it will still remain the same.

Mr. MacBride

It would appear to me that, in that eventuality, there should be an increased rate of allowance for the children. If a widow remarries the question of providing for the children should be looked after a little bit more. The State would probably welcome the remarriage of a widow because it would save that much on her pension, but I think it should be able to give a helping hand to the children.

There is another matter which I think has been construed possibly a bit strictly. The allowance for educational fees is construed in such a way as to limit it to tution. I think the allowance is £60 in regard to officers.

Major de Valera

Only officers.

Mr. MacBride

I do not see why soldiers' children should not also have some allowance for educational facilities. I understand that the allowance for officers is only payable in respect to actual tution: in other words, that the money cannot be used to pay boarding-school fees, and that the construction of the statutory provisions by the officials in the Departments of Finance and Defence is so strict as to say that the allowance is only for actual education as distinct from school fees. Therefore this £60 will not be available to a widow to pay boarding-school fees for the child. It will only be available pro ratato defray the cost of tuition in a boarding-school. If what I say is correct, that is a matter which, I think, should certainly be loosened up. The £60 is little enough. I do not think anyone would be able to put a child in a boarding-school at less than £80 a year. I think that the widow should have complete freedom to use this £60 as she thinks best for the child's education.

I think these are the main matters with which I wanted to deal. Therehas been a lot said by a number of Deputies about the time limit for pensions, the time limit for the granting of medals and so on. The matter has been approached on the basis that it is unfair to impose a time limit upon an applicant. May I put forward this consideration to the Minister? I think that, very often, it is false economy to put in a time limit in these various Army Pension Bills. It provokes people into applying for small pensions that they might not bother about applying for if they knew that they could come in at any time. I think that, when there is a time limit, there is a race to be in before the date line. It is a little bit like having the last drink in a "pub" before it closes. There is an extra rush at that moment. Perhaps the Minister might be able to urge on the Department of Finance that the imposition of a strict date line is a false economy, and that it does not result in any saving. In any event, the experience that we have had of these date lines in the past is that they have had to be extended at the public expense. Therefore, I think it is unwise to have a date line.

I hope that the attitude of the Government in making provision for increases to meet the increase in the cost of living and the depreciation in the value of money is only a prelude to the introduction of legislation which will enable old age pensions and other social welfare benefits to be increased similarly.

Captain Cowan

I join with the other Deputies in congratulating the Minister on bringing in this very comprehensive series of amendments to the Pensions Acts. I agree with the Deputies who have referred to the difficulty of interpreting these Acts because of the number of amending Acts that have been passed since the original Act. I would urge the Minister to produce a book—there is no difficulty in doing it; it can be done in his Department—which would contain all the Army Pensions Acts and the rules made thereunder, properly indexed, and make it available for the use not only of Deputies but of the general public. We have reached thestage when there ought to be on sale in the Stationery Office a book covering Army Pensions.

Deputy MacBride, in referring to Section 27 of the Bill and dealing with the pension of a widow, 18/9 a week during widowhood, overlooked one point which it is necessary to consider, that is, that the widow of a soldier is entitled under the ordinary legislation to a contributory widow's pension. Deputy MacBride overlooked that fact. His criticism of the 18/9 a week, when considered in relation to that fact, is not as severe as it appeared to be.

It is, of course, exceptionally difficult for a Deputy to know the relationship between the various Acts and the Act relating to widows' pensions. A contributory pension is paid irrespective of any other income of the widow. I mention that so that we would not get a wrong impression.

As I mentioned before, I consider that the whole trouble in connection with Pensions Acts and the amounts laid down is due to the narrow outlook that Parliament had in regard to pensions in 1923 or 1924. There was a very narrow outlook then. I have often termed it a mean outlook. There was that particular outlook in regard to pensions, salaries and quite a number of matters. It appeared to be normal at the time. The various salaries and allowances that were laid down were all found, years afterwards, to be entirely inadequate and inappropriate for the positions of the persons who were in receipt of them. Our Army Pensions Acts suffer from the same defect. There has been a series of Acts in an effort to amend and bring them up to date. The difficulty is that all these additions and improvements that have been made have not put the recipients in the position in which they ought to have been put and in which they would be had there been a more generous conception of the necessities of the recipients in 1923.

The Minister and his predecessor and other Ministers have been restricted, unfortunately, by the limitations laid down in the Acts of 1923 in regard to basic pensions. Percentage increases granted since do not entirely satisfy the demand ofreasonable persons in regard to pensions.

There is a number of points which I would just like to refer to briefly. I agree with what has been said by Deputies in regard to the case of Captain Ryan. That case in itself has drawn attention to the total inadequacy of the pension provision that was in our legislation for cases such as that and I would join with the other Deputies in recommending to the Minister that the widow and family of Captain Ryan should be put in the same position as the widow and family of a civil servant, killed in similar conditions, would be in.

Having said that, I should like also to mention other widows and children of officers who have died in the service or who have died after leaving the service. The widows and children of officers who have died in the service and officers who have died after leaving the service are endeavouring to exist on pensions that are entirely inadequate. The case of Captain Ryan's widow and family helps to draw attention to the insufficiency of the pensions provided for widows and children of deceased serving officers or deceased retired officers. I should like to see some parliamentary committee established that would examine the problem of these pensions and make such recommendations to the Minister and to the Government as they think fit.

Within the category I have mentioned there are two classes. There is the class of widows and children of officers who have retired some years ago, the widows and children of very distinguished officers who died from disease after they had retired from the Army and while they were on pension. Some of these widows and children have been left in very straitened circumstances owing to the fact that they were not deemed to be eligible to receive pensions. The Army Pensions Act did not make provision for them, nor does the present Bill make provision for them. I think that if a parliamentary committee were to examine into these matters they would be able to make a recommendation to the Minister and the Government which would have the support of all Deputies.

I have been asked to draw attention to a defect that is still in this Bill with regard to the date of marriage of an Old I.R.A. man in respect of pension. I have been asked to request the Minister to remove the limitation of date. The number of officers affected is very small and the financial commitment involved in removing the limitation would also be very small. It would help to remove the grievance of these particular officers if the Minister did that.

The date of application has been mentioned and Deputies have recommended that the restriction in regard to the date of application in several sections of the Bill should be removed. One particular case was brought to my notice some time ago and I was in touch with the Minister in regard to it. It was the case of the widow of an Army doctor who had retired on grounds of ill-health due to service and who died after retiring. For some reason or other, the widow was not aware of her entitlement to pension and did not make a claim until six months after the statutory period had expired. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the Minister had no statutory power to consider the application. I think every Deputy would be anxious that a case such as that should be considered on its merits. I would ask the Minister to include in the Bill a provision whereby, for reasonable cause, he would be entitled to extend the period of application in a case such as that.

I have also been asked to recommend that the children of the leaders of 1916, particularly the children of the signatories of the Proclamation of 1916, should be entitled to be included in the Army Pensions Acts, if they are not in a position to earn their own livelihood. Quite a number of relatives of the men of 1916 have been covered, but I should like to see the Bill widened to include all the children of the leaders of 1916 and certainly all the children of the signatories of the Proclamation.

Mr. Traynor

They would be all outside the age limit?

Captain Cowan

They would.

Mr. Traynor

They could not be included from the point of view of the children's allowance.

Captain Cowan

The recommendation I am making is that they would be considered specially.

Mr. Traynor

As dependents?

Captain Cowan

As a special class.

Mr. Traynor

If they could prove dependency?

Captain Cowan

There is a difficulty there. They are adults now. It would be difficult to say that in 1916 they were dependents, but they are a special case because, if their fathers had lived, their condition might have been much better.

Mr. Traynor

Do you know of any specific case?

Captain Cowan

I do. I will mention the special case to the Minister. I have been asked, however, to put it in a broad general way and, as far as I know, there are very few affected. Inclusion of some general clause would enable the Minister to deal with them.

Recently a special case was brought to my notice, and I am sorry that Deputy MacEoin is not here, because I was anxious to have his support in regard to it. During the War of Independence, or shortly afterwards, certain members of the British forces co-operated with the I.R.A. and were primarily responsible for successful operations by the I.R.A., including the capture of barracks. The State did make certain provision for these people by taking them into the State service. There is one case I have in mind where the person concerned was in the Army and is still in the State service. If that man had continued to serve in the British forces he would be entitled now to a pension equivalent to the amount he is earning as a civilian employee in a Government Department. I think the pensions code should be widened to include a person such as that so that he would receive a substantial pension when he reaches the age limit for employment in the Government service. I do not wantto be more specific in regard to the case because I do not want to identify it for particular reasons. But I think the House would agree that where a person had co-operated with the Army in the successful achievement of one of the military objectives at the time and, as a result, lost his service and the prospects of a pension he should be left in no worse position than he would have been in had he not co-operated with the military forces of this State at the time.

I would strongly request the Minister to consider the case. I understand there is a substantial file in regard to it in his Department. If it cannot be included in this section perhaps the Minister would indicate that the matter would be considered and that provision would be made in some way for this particular person and, perhaps, for others like him. I think the numbers would not be very many. The financial involvement of the State would not be very much, but I do think it is to people such as that, who took very substantial risks, perhaps the risk of court-martial and execution, the risk, anyway, of trial and imprisonment, had they been taken into custody by the British authorities subsequent to the operations in which they were involved and for which as agents they were primarily responsible.

I do not know whether on this Bill I could make reference to the Defence Forces pension scheme which is part of the Army pensions code. But I understand the Minister is at the moment in the process of amending the Defence Forces pensions scheme and it has been strongly recommended to me that Section 15 of that scheme should be amended to provide that retired personnel of the Army in receipt of pensions who are employed in Government Departments in clerical or other capacities, will not forfeit portion of their pensions because of that employment. The Minister has dealt with that in regard to the military service pensions by abolishing the abatement, and the very same principle is involved in regard to this particular section of the Defence Forces pension scheme. I would recommend to the Minister thatthe necessary amendment to that be made as quickly as possible.

Quite a lot has been said here about the children of officers and soldiers; about the children of deceased officers and soldiers and deceased or retired or pensioned officers and soldiers, and about their education. I would like to urge very strongly that an educational establishment, a college—for the education certainly of the boys of deceased officers and soldiers—should be established, and the lead in respect to that should be taken by the Department of Defence. I think it would be a considerable help to the widows and to the families of those officers and soldiers if we had an educational establishment where they would be maintained and educated free at State expense. Other countries have such establishments and the children of officers and soldiers who go through those establishments have always done very well in life. I certainly would like to see the day when the Minister would be able to open such an educational establishment for the children of deceased officers and deceased soldiers. It would be a very substantial contribution to the well-being of their families and it would be a very useful addition to the provisions that are laid down in the Army Pensions Acts.

This is a Bill which all of us agree should be passed into law as quickly as possible. The sooner this is in operation the sooner the benefits will be felt and the additional moneys received by many families who are badly in need of them at the moment.

There are matters of general principle in regard to pensions legislation as a whole that could be raised at the moment, but I think the House would be wiser to give the Minister this Bill as quickly as possibly and we could, by setting up a committee of the House, or by some other means, set out on an examination of the principles governing Army pensions legislation. Every Deputy in this House can, on occasions such as this, severely criticise some of the conditions of our pensions legislation and some of the things that happen under them, some of the alleged negligences of Governments and of Departments, but I do thinkthat where we have a comprehensive series of amendments such as we have here all drawn with the intention of benefiting the recipients and improving Army pensions legislation generally, we should give that Bill to the Minister as quickly as possible and get down to consideration of the wider issues subsequently. I think we must all realise the amount of work that has gone into the production of this Bill and I think the Minister and his Department and the Department of Finance are to be congratulated on the fact that within such a short space of time we are able to have before us such a comprehensive measure that will bring very substantial benefits to many thousands of our citizens. I join, as I say, with the House in congratulating the Minister and I hope we will be able to say in a very short time that this Bill has been passed finally into law.

Mr. Colley

With other Deputies I feel I must congratulate the Minister on this Bill and on the great benefits that it is going to confer on a very large number of people. When I got the Bill on Saturday morning and looked at it and read Part II of the Bill about the dependents of the people who were killed in 1916 and during the Black and Tan fighting, and later, I was very agreeably surprised. Our record in the past about those people has not been anything for us to boast about. It may be due originally to what Deputy Cowan referred to as the outlook at the time of the original Bill, but there is in this Bill a big departure in that respect and I am sure that every Deputy in the House will be very pleased to see that reasonable sums are now being provided for these dependents.

Generally, the whole Bill, I think, will commend itself very much to all the members. While some of the figures that have been complained about here are not what we would like them to be, we must remember that in every case they represent an increase. In the big bulk of cases affected by this Bill and the Military Service Pensions Act passed a few months ago, these pensioners are only now being put on apar with ordinary State pensioners. The increases are based on those given in the Pensions Increases Act of 1950. It seems extraordinary that these increases were not provided for some years ago when other pensioners were given increases, but at least it is well that it should be done now. I think that it is a very big achievement for the Minister to be able at the present time to provide increases for the many classes and categories covered by this Bill. There are some features of it with which I am very pleased. The change in the marriage date will be of great benefit to a number of Old I.R.A. men who have been in receipt of disability pensions and who were treated as single men because of the date of their marriage. While the date in the Bill will not cover all cases, I think it should cover the vast majority of the men concerned. Perhaps the Minister, in response to the appeal by Deputy Cowan, will consider whether it is worth while retaining any limitation at all.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister's statement in regard to the improvements that are to be made in the calculation of the means test in connection with the special allowances. That has been a big source of irritation in the past and one heard many complaints about it. I think the points the Minister mentioned will dispose of many of the grievances. I was glad to hear him explain that there is to be an exemption of the first £30 of a military service pension in the calculation of the means test for the special allowance. That is a very fine gesture and will be of great benefit to some men who gave very good service, service sufficient to win recognition from the Military Service Pensions Board but not to give them anything like a sufficient pension for their old age. I think it is only right that men such as they should get that special recognition. With Deputy O'Sullivan, I should like to ask the Minister to consider the position of married persons who come under the aggravation clause of the 1937 Act. I certainly think that there is a real grievance amongst a number of men in that respect. I do not know whether the question has been considered beforebut I would suggest that the Minister should give it serious consideration now.

The Bill, as has been pointed out, is a very complicated one for a layman. We have all discovered that for ourselves. For myself, in regard to a number of points in which I was interested, it has meant a great deal of exploration of past Acts. I think that when the Act is passed the Minister should endeavour to have a White Paper or something of that sort prepared by his Department, a White Paper which would show the effect of each section of the Bill on the various categories. Such a White Paper would be of great help to Deputies and to other people in their endeavours to ascertain the results of the various provisions of the Bill. It would, I know, be of great use to Deputies in future because I am quite satisfied that this will not be the last Army Pensions (Amendment) Bill. It would save us a considerable amount of research in the future. I would suggest, however, that the preparation of that White Paper should not be attempted until the Bill has passed because I am sure the enactment of this measure will not be any means a small job. It is going to take some time.

There are too many people affected by the Bill who have been badly treated in the past to warrant any great delay in its passage. I would, therefore, appeal to Deputies to expedite the passage of the Bill so that the large number of people who are awaiting it will get the benefit of it as soon as possible. There was some question about putting it through all its stages to-day but, if that is not possible, I would strongly urge that it should be allowed to pass without any appreciable delay. While there may be some grievances outstanding, they could never be dealt with in this Bill without prolonged delay, and I would appeal to those who have those points in mind to get the present measure through at any rate and then let us see what can be done later about outstanding matters. I again congratulate the Minister on the magnificent effort he has made in this Bill to meetthe various points that were put to him in regard to the grievances of pensioners under previous Acts.

Mr. Hilliard

There is no doubt that this is a complicated measure and in my view could not be otherwise. By reason of the fact that the Army pensions code reached the Statute Book in this country as the occasion demanded there were a number of Acts dealing with the various types and classes of people who contracted their disabilities or received their wounds under vastly different types of circumstances, and each Act was designed to cover the type of people according as the occasion demanded. Then it was found as time passed that the allowances provided under the various Acts were not in keeping with the demands made by the persons in receipt of the allowances on their friends and on their comiades who had taken part in the fight for freedom with them, and it was found that the State would be called upon to give a greater measure of justice to these people.

Subsequently, it was found that the State should also provide for disabilities that were aggravated by service and to provide for persons whose degree of disability did not reach the statutory provisions of the earlier Acts. All these Acts are now being amended here in this measure to bring into line the various amounts of pensions that are payable to the beneficiaries under each Act, and therefore the Bill we have before us is a Bill providing pensions and providing them by sections in the Bill with reference to previous Acts and it is a difficult matter for the ordinary uninitiated person to come to a firm decision as to what is the meaning conveyed by each section of this Bill.

In so far as Part II of this Bill is concerned it deals with people who had pre-Truce service and subsequent service and their widows and dependents, certain specified dependents, of men who were killed or died as a result of disease contracted during their service; and the monetary provisions to the widows and parents or sisters as the case may be are increased a substantial amount that Ithink will meet the demands and the wishes of all fair-minded people in this country.

In so far as Part IV of this Bill, which deals with the special allowances, is concerned, I want to put on record my appreciation of the action taken by the Minister in disregarding the first £30 of service pension when the means of a person applying under this section is being computed for the purpose of the special allowances. When you take into consideration the type of service a private or a person holding a rank equivalent under the 1934 Act in this country rendered to this country it is only in keeping with that type of service and with the merits that derive from it that this should be so. A man who is in receipt of £20 or £30 or even up to £40 must have been a member of the Volunteers around 1917 or 1918. In many cases they were full-time members of the active service units, rendering full-time service during the year 1920 and 1921. If they were not they were persons held by the British either in internment camps or under sentence on charges preferred against them when taken in action. Along with that they would have had practically full-time service during the year of the Truce in posts or camps throughout the country.

Subsequent to the 1st July, 1922, those men would have served full time on either side—either in the Army or in the I.R.A. If they served in the I.R.A. they would have been prisoners for a year or a year and a half and would have completed periods of hunger strike and would have rendered service that the ordinary person in this country who did not live through those times would hardly believe that people were capable of rendering and being present to-day. Therefore, I think that placing those people in a different category, in so far as the special allowances are concerned from the person who is entitled to a special allowance by reason of the fact that he has a medal, is a matter to be commended, and very much commended, and it meets my point of view as expressed on the Second Reading of the recently passed Service Pensions Act.

It is not generally known throughout the country that the entitlement to a medal is based merely on a three months' membership period in the I.R.A., up to and including the 11th July, 1921. A man or a woman entitled to a medal need not show any further service than that. Of course, many of them had much longer service and membership, but notwithstanding that, their service would not be anything to compare with the service rendered by the men and women who were in receipt of service pensions up to £30 a year with the rank of private or the grade "E" in the 1934 Act which is equivalent to that of a private.

I do not want to delay the House much longer in regard to the sections in the Bill which deal with present personnel in the Army and deal with the men who served during the emergency and the widows and children of men who were killed on service in the present Army. There is a provision here for increases for the widows and children of such persons. In so far as the allowances to the children are concerned I think that the provision which enables the State to contribute towards the education of children over a certain age is a good idea and that it is a matter that should be further utilised if it is possible in any future legislation or any help that the State can give apart from what is given in this legislation.

I have nothing further to say on this Bill. There are many things I might mention, but to say them would be a repetition of what has already been said, and I do not want to labour the matter by repetition. I certainly congratulate the Minister on the Bill. It will be a sound one and it will leave no fear in anybody's mind that persons who are incapable of self-support, have no means and rendered service to this country will have to depend on public institutions to maintain them. They will have under this Bill an allowance sufficient to keep them in frugal comfort outside the walls of a county home. Under the terms of the Bill, such persons can live in fairly good circumstances, if they are not in a position to work, if they are found incapable of work and permanently incapableof earning their living and are without means.

I congratulate the Minister on the terms of the Bill. There are defects in it, but I am not going to deal with them now. It will be found that there are many people married to pensioners who will not qualify for widows' allowances when their husbands die. In all probability, when these cases arise in the future there will be demands to have such classes included as well as the classes included in the measure. This measure is a very forward step, and I ask the House to pass it as early as possible, so that persons who will be beneficiaries will be able to obtain the benefits they are to get as early as it is possible to pay them.

Mr. O'Higgins

There are three things I would like to mention. I join with other Deputies in welcoming the Bill, but I certainly do not think it is a matter for great adulation that a Bill of this kind is brought in. The fact is that, unfortunately, each year or each 18 months, a new Bill is necessary, because the pensions originally allotted under the parent statutes become completely out of accord with money values and the cost of living. It is not a good thing that every few years it is necessary to bring in legislation to increase pensions. I would prefer to see some scheme devised whereby the pensions mentioned in the present Bill could be tied to a cost-of-living figure, so that having been granted they would not be eaten away in a year or two by falling money values. Schemes of that kind are operated extensively in other countries and pensions paid to deserving cases —to wounded ex-army personnel or to dependents of army personnel—do not become inadequate in the course of a few years. I can foretell, as every Deputy can prophesy, I think, that in a few years' time the pensions mentioned in this Bill will have been found inadequate and another Bill will become necessary. In the intervening period, great hardship will be caused to those drawing the pension, as has been caused up to this and before this Bill was introduced. That is a matter which should be examined.

Secondly, other Deputies have mentionedPart V of the Bill, the part that deals with special allowances. I have never understood, not do I understand now, why a special allowance should be the one particular kind of State benefit that once having been granted cannot be considered again for 12 months. Frankly, I do not like the change that is proposed in the administration of special allowances under Part V. Why should it be the peculiar privilege of the Minister, in his own absolute discretion under special circumstances, to review a case within a period of 12 months? I do not think an applicant for a special allowance or a person who has it should be put in the position of a beggarman. Those drawing special allowances at the moment, or who claim to draw them, have a better right to that particular form of State assistance that many other classes of pensioners, because they are the people who have rendered service on the one hand and who by reason of their physical state are unable to earn their livelihood otherwise. Why should that particular section have been singled out in the past for the application of a rule whereby their case is decided once and cannot be looked at again for 12 months, no matter what circumstances may intervene?

In Part V the Minister proposes to alter that to a certain extent, by providing that he in his absolute discretion may allow a review in between the two dates. I do not think that is good enough. In my view, an applicant for a special allowance, just because he claims to be penniless, to be destitute and incapable of earning his own livelihood, is entitled to have his claim examined seven times a week if he so desires. I see no reason why he should be put in the special position of having his case examined only once a year or in special circumstances if the Minister so decides. I mention that to the Minister because every one of us knows well of very hard cases, where people are drawing special allowances that may be inadequate and that may be increased slightly under this Bill. I think they are entitled to avail of the services of the Department of Defence to have any grievance or difficultyfully investigated immediately. All that kind of statutory time limit on the investigation of their cases should be abolished.

The third matter is this. Under the Bill there is no provision, as far as I can see, with regard to the administration of the pensions proposed to be increased. That may be inevitable and explainable. In my experience, there has been considerable delay in the investigation of many claims for pensions and for special allowances. I suppose it is proper that there should not be any hasty decisions one way or the other, but at times the delay appears to be extreme. At the moment, special allowances are operated by the Minister's Department in conjunction with the Department of Social Welfare. Perhaps it is not strictly in order, but I urge on the Minister in enforcing the provisions of this Bill, to have some effort made to speed up consideration, particularly of special allowance claims. They are all based on a case approaching destitution—they must be, to qualify for a special allowance. They are also all based on a case of extreme ill-health— they must be. That kind of a claim, whether it is well founded or not, should be decided as quickly as possible. At the moment, by reason, first of all, of the medical investigation, secondly, the investigation as to means, and thirdly, perhaps other investigations that the Department of Defence may consider necessary, a considerable amount of red tape has to be cut through before a decision in a first claim case can be arrived at. I do not think that is good. I should like to see the Minister make some effort to hasten a decision in many of these cases.

With other Deputies, I welcome the Bill. I think it is good to see it introduced. I have no doubt that it will not be the last of these measures that we shall have to consider. I do not think we shall ever bring about finality with regard to the amount of pensions until we tie them to the value of money and provide that where money falls in value there shall be an automatic increase in the money paid to pensioners.

Mr. Carter

With other Deputies, I welcome this legislation. The only fault I have to find with the Bill is, as Deputy MacBride has already mentioned, the explanatory memorandum which goes with it. Having regard to all the duties which a Deputy has to perform and the amount of time at his disposal for correspondence and the consideration of other Bills of a different character, the authorities should consider issuing a more detailed and indexed explanatory memorandum or booklet with Bills of this particular type.

As Deputy Cowan said, we seem to get more sympathetic towards the people who fought in the War of Independence, as the years go by. I suppose that that is only as it should be. I am sure other Deputies will agree with me that, at all times, the present Minister for Defence met us in a satisfactory manner with regard both to representation and legislation in connection with soldiers of the War of Independence.

Deputy MacBride, and later Deputy O'Higgins, mentioned the tying-up of the military service pensions with the official cost-of-living figure. We must cut our cloth according to our measure. If I remember rightly, when the Estimate for the Department of Defence was recently under consideration by this House we were criticised for spending too much money on defence. It follows that if you are not prepared to vote the money you cannot distribute it in the form of pensions or allowances. We should be a little more realistic about this type of legislation, and I fear that the interest in that suggestion is more apparent than real.

I should like to mention the case of a person who is in receipt of a disability pension or a special allowance. In the course of my duties, I came across several cases of persons in receipt of a special allowance because they were totally incapacitated. When an investigation officer of the Department of Social Welfare visited the house and discovered, perhaps, a horse's collar or maybe a cart in the street, or something like that which he could consider as extra means, he mentioned it in his report and, as aresult, the pension or the allowance was drastically reduced. I do not suggest that the Minister for Defence was responsible for that position but it is a state of affairs which should not exist.

I should like to mention, also, the case of a person who, say, received a wound in the foot or leg and who was in receipt of a gratuity. Let us say that he came before the medical referee about 1932. His degree of disability might be progressive and, in time, it might become absolute. Because his disability was progressive, that man may not have realised, until a period of five years or more had passed, that he was losing his right to apply for a total disability pension. After the lapse of five years, such a man has no redress. I am not quite clear whether or not the Minister can legislate for that type of case but I should like him to consider it.

I am glad that the benefits of the Social Welfare Bill are now extended to our soldiers. That did not obtain before the 5th January of this year, and it is an extra benefit.

I am sure that this Bill will be welcomed by the Dáil and the country as a whole.

Mr. O'Donnell

First of all, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the Bill, which I welcome. There is, however, one protest which I should like to make and that protest refers to all Bills introduced by Ministers for Defence down through the years. Why should we legislate by reference? We have many offices in this House and in the Oireachtas generally but, very shortly, we shall require an interpretation office to interpret these Bills. I gurantee that 90 per cent. of the Deputies of this House have not the foggiest notion of what this Bill is about. Why we should persist in legislating by reference is a mystery to me.

General MacEoin

They know what it is about, but they do not know what it will do.

Mr. O'Donnell

Why can we not state in plain and simple Irish orEnglish the meaning of a particular section of a Bill and if we want to refer to a section in a previous Bill, why can we not insert it?

Mr. McMenamin

What would happen to the lawyers?

Mr. Davin

That is good, coming from a lawyer.

Mr. O'Donnell

It may be good for the lawyers, but I am much more concerned with the unfortunate people who are depending upon this Bill. Why should they have to pay a fee to get a lawyer to interpret an Act passed by the Legislature? I do not think it is right. Every member of the House knows that, since the Bill was first published, we have all of us had queries from our constituents as to the meaning of the various sections. Take, for example, the question of dependency as dealt with in Section 4, which sets out who may qualify for a dependent's allowance. Is there a Deputy who can explain in simple words the meaning of Section 4? We all know what it means in relation to the widow being the applicant, but when it comes to a question of a sister or sisters, as the case may be, being the applicant, we have to decide which sister it is to be. I do not see very much provision in the section for that decision. The only provision I see made is that made in sub-paragraph (c) (2), under which the Minister may grant to such one sister who in the opinion of the Minister for Finance should be treated, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, as a dependent of such deceased person. The Minister for Finance, no less, has the last word; he is the man who will interpret who is a dependent within the meaning of Section 4.

Mr. Traynor

No; the Deputy is misinterpreting that entirely.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does the Minister agree that it is open to the interpretation I am putting on it?

Mr. Traynor

No. It gives power to the Minister for Finance to bring somebody within the Bill who might otherwise be out of it.

Mr. O'Donnell

In other words, we are legislating for some class of individuals, but we say that in certain cases the Minister for Finance, no less, may step in and declare that some person not envisaged in the Bill is entitled to it.

Mr. Traynor

Some hard case which might otherwise be outside it.

Mr. O'Donnell

If we are to make provision for some hard-up person, let the House do it. Why let the Minister for Finance do it? I think that what the Minister says bears out my argument that we require an interpretation office in this House, an offical interpreter to interpret for the majority of Deputies the meaning of proposed legislation.

Mr. Davin

And of "active service", too.

Mr. O'Donnell

The definition of "active service" has changed so often that I do not propose to say anything further about it. I have already dealt with it on the Estimate. There is another matter to which I take exception—the fixing of the period within which applications may be made. The White Paper circulated with the Bill says that applications for allowances under this part of the Bill must generally be made within 12 months after the Bill becomes law. Why must it be made within 12 months?

Mr. Traynor

It is an extension of the time.

Mr. O'Donnell

Why have any limit?

Mr. Traynor

They have not got the right to apply at all now.

Mr. O'Donnell

Are you not extending time for them?

Mr. Traynor

We are.

Mr. O'Donnell

Why fix a limit to the extension?

Mr. Traynor

You will have to ask the Minister for Defence in the previous Government that question.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am asking the Minister who is now in charge of this Bill. Why does he not amend it, if he does not agree with it?

Mr. Traynor

I am telling theDeputy now that I am extending the time and am going to admit probably 6,000 to 10,000 people whom the former Minister excluded.

Mr. O'Donnell

Why is there a necessity, in extending the time, to fix a limit to it?

General MacEoin

Is that a good defence by the Minister?

Mr. O'Donnell

If what the Minister says is correct, he is merely confirming——

Mr. Traynor

And it can be extended any time any Minister wishes to extend it.

General MacEoin

Why not do the decent thing, then?

Mr. Traynor

I will deal with it when I am speaking later.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will the Minister not agree that it would be better to do it now? There may be cases of the sisters of veterans having found their way into institutions in the United States of America where they are practically destitutes. It may be 12, 14 or 24 months before they hear of the passing of this Act. I know of cases of dependents of veterans who are in the slums of Glasgow and Liverpool and who may not hear of the passing of this legislation until it becomes too late.

Mr. Traynor

If you know of such cases, bring them to the attention of the Department.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is what is cluttering up the Statute Book. Why can we not do it now?

Mr. Traynor

You will be doing a good job of work if you do that.

Mr. O'Donnell

If it takes the Department—I am not now referring to the Minister—as long to remedy these evils as it has taken them to remedy some of the evils I have brought to their notice in the past, God look to the dependents. As I say, I am not referring to the Minister. I must say that he has given nothing but personal attention to any matter I have brought to his notice.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible—not the officials.

Mr. O'Donnell

I agree. I am merely mentioning the exceptions, where the Minister passes the buck sometimes, as all Ministers do. I think it is really a mistake to limit the time. If we propose to extend the time, let us give an unlimited extension. These people are dying out. In a few years' time we will have no further dependents of these veterans, and it is a mistake to limit the time within which applications must be made. Remember, we are victimising the applicant. If he does not make his application within 12 months, out goes his claim, but we have not got a word to say about the board, who wait almost 12 years in some cases before giving a decision on a claim. We have no way of penalising them, and more is the pity. They can take as long as they like.

General MacEoin

And they will.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is another point which strikes me—the date of the death of the unfortunate veteran. If the veteran died before the 11th day of July, 1925, the dependents set out in the section may apply for a pension. I do not know why we picked 11th July. We know that there are veterans who contracted T.B. during the War of Independence and in the subsequent civil war, and who, by reason of skilful medical attention, lingered on into 1926, 1927 and 1928 and even into 1930. Why are we debarring the dependents of these unfortunates who, by the care, skill and attention of their medical advisers were kept hanging on to the threads of life for several years? Simply because they lived beyond that ominous date 11th July, the day preceding the 12th of July, we debar their dependents from receiving a pension. I think it is a very bad thing. After all, if a veteran contracts a disease from exposure or otherwise and dies from that disease, why should we say that his dependent is not entitled to a pension unless he died before a certain date? I do not know, but Ithink we should not fix any time limit there either. If it can be proved that he died as a direct result of the injuries he received or of the disease he contracted, then his dependent should be entitled to make application at any time.

Deputy Carter said that the members on this side of the House objected to the spending of money when the Vote for the Department of Defence was being discussed and that we wanted higher pensions now for the dependents of soldiers and the veterans of our Army. Let it be clearly stated that our principal policy was that we had no necessity for such a large Army and that we should pay our soldiers much more than we are paying them and make better provisions for larger pensions for them when they retire or pensions for their dependents if the soldiers lose their lives on active service. We say that our soldiers are not paid sufficient. It would not cost the State as much to pay them sufficient and cut the personnel of the Army as it would to half pay and keep an army of 11,000 or 12,000 kicking up the cobblestones on the Curragh. That is our main objection.

We further say that our soldiers are equally important as the civil servants. If we are going to provide pensions for our civil servants, the least we can do is to provide a similar pension for our soldiers. If a civil servant on £1,000 a year is entitled to a pension of £600 or £700 per annum, the Army officer receiving the same salary and emoluments should be entitled to a similar pension and his dependents should be entitled to a similar allowance as would be paid to civil servants in the same position.

With those exceptions, I welcome the Bill. It is a step in the right direction, but we have a little bit further to go. I would ask the Minister to see if he could possibly have his Department draft future legislation in a way that it would be understood by ordinary Deputies.

Mr. Traynor

I think the wisest remark which I heard in the course of this debate came from Deputy Ted O'Sullivan. He said this was a good Bill and hoped the next one would be better. That, I think, sums up the discussionfairly. As a matter of fact, that observation was repeated in one form or another later on by almost every Deputy who spoke. All Deputies appeared to be under the impression that we should bring in another Bill at some time, that this was not the final Pensions Bill and that there would be others to follow. Whoever succeeds me will have my best wishes to be as successful as I have been in this particular case.

I had very serious complaints with regard to the delay in producing this Bill. I was told recently that 12 months was an exorbitant length of time to take to produce it. In that respect I should like to say that the 12 months were 12 months of endeavour and of very hard labour, especially for the officials who dealt with the Bill. I can say that these officials worked at the fullest possible pressure in their efforts to produce it in the shortest time. I compliment them on the fact of their having produced it as quickly as they did.

I am not going to say that this is not a complicated Bill. It is the most complicated Bill that I have ever had to deal with. It is made more complicated and difficult by reason of the fact that it is legislation by reference, which is, perhaps, the most difficult type of legislation to deal with. That complication was added to by the fact that the references had to go back over nine separate Acts, each of which was, in my opinion, just as complicated as the present Bill. Of course, that made the work of the officials still more difficult and it made the task of the drafting officers of the Attorney-General's Department such that they had to be extremely careful in producing exactly what was required. Therefore, I think that in all the circumstances it can be said that the officials have done an excellent job of work, about which I feel very happy.

Suggestions were made as to the production of some kind of paper or booklet which would serve as a guide for the people to whom this Bill will apply. I will have that question examined, but had I adopted the suggestion that several Deputies madeof including either in the margin or anywhere else references to or explanations of the various Acts referred to in the text, I can say to the House without any doubt that the size of the Bill which we have produced would probably have been doubled or, perhaps, trebled and it would not, in my opinion, have made it any clearer or any more simple for Deputies to deal with. I will have the question of the booklet examined and if it is possible to do anything in regard to it or if I think it will be helpful I will have the matter attended to. I certainly will not take any action which would be likely to delay the operation of this Bill as regards the persons to whom it will apply. I do not think that Deputies would expect me to do that either.

The case of the Air Corps officer to whom I referred in my opening statement was raised by a number of Deputies. When Deputy Seán Collins was dealing with that question he drew comparisons between the Air Corps officer and the civil servant. His comparison was rather unfair. First of all, the flying officer knows the risks which he undertakes when he becomes a flying officer. He knows that part of his daly task is to undertake that risk and there is a special allowance made to him on that account which can be used for the purpose of insurance. Any officer who understands the risk he is taking will, in the interest of his family, take out that insurance and thus utilise the money made a vailable for the future welfare of his family.

The civil servant to whom Deputy Collins referred and whose widow, he said, would receive £560 odd if he was killed in a flying accident is in the position that flying is no part of his daily task. It is a risk which he undertakes at the request of the State and while that risk may be only occasional, nevertheless, if he is asked to fly from here to England on a mission on behalf of the State, he runs that risk and he is insured against it by way of the pension provided. If he is killed that insurance is the pension to which Deputy Collins referred. It is only inthe circumstances of a civil servant being killed on duty that his widow receives a pension.

There is the other aspect of it. If Deputy Collins went on with the whole story in regard to the civil servant to whom he referred, he would have told us that if the flying officer died in the ordinary way, his widow would have received the normal widow's pension to which she would be entitled as a result of his death. If a civil servant died in normal circumstances, his widow would be entitled to a gratuity and no pension. That is the position, so that I think that the comparison made was rather unfair. I have certainly no objection to anyone else increasing further, if they can, the allowances I have managed to increase to the extent which I mentioned in my opening statement. I have no objection to any other Minister endeavouring to add to that and doubling it if he can do so.

Several Deputies spoke on the question of an open date for applications. I, personally, have no very strong convictions about it for the simple reason that, in the course of time, these applications will disappear anyhow. Time will solve that difficulty. The fact of the matter is that, as regards medals, for instance, we fixed a closing date under a particular Act. We advertised in the newspapers; we broadcast on the radio and we made every possible endeavour to ensure that everybody who was entitled to apply for a service medal, would apply before the closing date. If they did not apply before that date, it was not the fault of the State. In spite of that I am again extending, in this particular Bill, the date for another 12 months.

As I have already mentioned, during the time in which the application period was closed, no less than 6,000 applications were received in the Department. These 6,000 applications would have been completely and entirely out if this measure had not been brought in. We are not only admitting these 6,000 cases but we are also opening the door to 6,000, 8,000 or 10,000 more as the case may be.

General MacEoin

You are opening it to any person who has not applied for a medal but who has applied for a pension or who was turned down since.

Mr. Traynor

We are providing another opportunity for everybody who thinks they gave service to the State and who can prove that they did give such service.

General MacEoin

I think you are right.

Mr. Traynor

It is quite in order, therefore, to give the Minister power to extend it again if he so desires, but it is very doubtful if the open date would be the best way of dealing with it.

Some Deputies raised the question as to whether final "aggravation" pensioners would be entitled to marriage pensions. They would not be entitled to such pensions. Therefore, upon their deaths their widows would not be entitled to widows' allowances. These are confined to people in receipt of disability pensions proper and who have been awarded a married pension. Such cases will become more numerous by reason of this Act because, whereas formerly the date was governed by the date of the would, we are now adopting the date of the passing of the 1932 Act. I think that is reasonably fair. We are bringing in quite a large number of men who have disability pensions but who have not the right to a married pension. These people will be brought in now and if the holders of these pensions die from a disease attributable to their service their widows will now be entitled to a widow's allowance.

A question was also asked in relation to a person who was making application for the first time for a special allowance and who died in the interval between the application and the decision. The position would be that, if the investigation had reached a stage at which the Minister had recommended to the Department of Finance that this was a case in which an award should be made, then the amount due up to the date of the applicant's death would be payable to the next-of-kin; but, if it had not reached that stage, it would not be payable.

Deputy Cowan, and possibly some other Deputies, referred to the cases of certain pensions in which differences occur because of the date of retirement. The Deputy mentioned that he was talking to me recently about one or two types of cases. Now, the position is that the pensions are not governed so much by dates, although dates come into it, as by the pay which the man was receiving on the date on which he retired. So far as I am aware, pensions are generally governed by the amount of pay the individual is receiving at the date of his retirement. A man who retired before the 1st September, 1946, received a pension applicable to the amount of salary he was then receiving. A man who retired after that date, salaries having increased in the meantime, received a higher rate of pension because of that salary increase. Those who received increases in salaries between 1946 and the present time get a pension applicable to the total amount of salary they were in receipt of and there is nothing we can do about that since pension is calculated on salary.

Objection was taken to the means test in respect of special allowances. Deputies know that special allowances are payable only to people who have insufficient means because of incapacity to work or because they are over 70 years of age. In the first instance, an individual is granted a special allowance because, on health grounds, he is no longer able to earn a livelihood. In the second instance he is granted the special allowance because he has passed the age of 70 years, and is for that reason regarded as incapable of earning a livelihood. If a man has sufficient to provide for himself, why should the State step in and provide him with still further means? That is the only reason why there is a means test; the test is for the purpose of ensuring that the State—in other words, the people—will not pay out money to individuals who do not need it. From that point of view the means test must continue.

I think it was Deputy MacEoin who asked would a widow whose husbanddied from a disease other than that for which his pension was granted receive a pension? No: the disease must be the disease for which he is receiving a disability pension. I would not press that too far. We try to take as wide a view as possible.

I think I have dealt with most of the points raised. There are points that can be dealt with more appropriately on the Committee Stage when we examine the Bill section by section. I do not think there will be quite as much difficulty as some Deputies seem to think. The legal authorities have to use legal phraseology. These proposals are passed to them in simple language. When they are translated into legal phraseolgy they become difficult for a layman to understand. Often when we think we understand something we subsequently discover that our interpretation is wrong. During the discussion on the Committee Stage I think we will be able to clear up most of the difficulties that seem to exist at the moment.

Mr. McMenamin

In order to simplify matters on the Committee Stage, may I direct the Minister's attention now to Section 4, sub-section (c) (i) and (ii). The Minister may grant a pension or allowance to a person who:—

"(i) was dependent on such deceased person at the date of his death, or

(ii) should, in the opinion of the Minister for Finance, be treated, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, as a dependent of such deceased person."

Everybody knows that all these people were boys and girls dependent on their fathers at that time. Here the beneficiary must be dependent on the person who died at the date of that deceased person's death. But these people were all young people dependent on their parents at that time. That would seem to nullify the section because one could not prove it and the section is worthless.

Mr. Traynor

It probably will not be a child at all. It may be a sister or a parent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could not all this be discussed more appropriately on the Committee Stage?

Mr. McMenamin

Will the Minister consider redrafting it between this and the Committee Stage?

Mr. Traynor

We can deal with it on that stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. McMenamin

Would the Minister between this and the Committee Stage circulate amendments dealing with the matters to which vital objection was taken? That would save a lot of trouble and we could let the Bill through expeditiously next week.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think it would be possible to make extensive amendments. It would be as big a job as framing the Bill itself.

Mr. McMenamin

Some of it does not make sense to a layman.

General MacEoin

I think it would be better to leave the Committee Stage until to-morrow or Tuesday next at the latest.

Mr. Traynor

I cannot say what the order of business will be to-morrow.

General MacEoin

If I thought there was any danger of the Bill being unduly delayed, I would be prepared to take it now.

Mr. Desmond

Amendments will need some time. We are interested in amendments. It is up to the Minister.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21st July, 1953.