Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Nov 1953

Vol. 143 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - R.I.C. Pensions—Motion.

Captain Cowan

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that members of the R.I.C. who resigned from that force at the request of the First Dáil rendered meritorious service to the nation by so doing and requests the Government to consider the introduction of proposals for legislation to enable pensions to be paid to all such persons irrespective of the length of their service in the R.I.C. at the date of their resignation.

That motion has been put down at the request of a body representing the few remaining members of a force of men who were members of the R.I.C. during the period prior to the Truce in 1921 and who resigned from that force or were dismissed from it by the British Government at that time because of their national outlook. I understand that originally there were 1,000 persons affected and Dáil Éireann on three separate occasions passed legislation to deal with these resigned and dismissed members of the R.I.C.

Under legislation that was passed nearly 600 had their national service recognised in one way or another, and there was left round about 400 whose services to the nation were not consideredat the time worthy of recognition. Men who had less than four years' service in the R.I.C. were debarred from pension; subsequently that was reduced in 1934 to less than three years' service. As a result of that limitation round about 400 were eliminated.

At the moment there are less than 30 of the affected men alive, and only within the last few days some of those who were instrumental in briefing me have themselves passed away. There is, therefore, a very small number left but they are anxious that the Irish Parliament should recognise their services, because whether they served two years, three years, or four years the fact that they resigned as a protest or were dismissed because of their national activities or their suspected national outlook should commend them to this House.

I think it may be accepted that we are always generous in recognition of services rendered to the country. This small body of men showed their support for the national cause in a very practical way during those vital days in 1920 and the early part of 1921. I think every Deputy would be anxious that the Minister should have the facts reconsidered now in the light of the knowledge that aproximately less than 30 of the men concerned are alive to-day.

The moneys involved will be negligible, but the individuals concerned would like to have that practical recognition from the State. I understand many Deputies are anxious to support this motion, and a recommendation to the Minister to have the case of this small number looked into at the earliest possible moment. As time goes on we are, I think, inclined to put a more favourable construction on the services that were rendered in those days, a more favourable construction than we were inclined to put on them after 1921 and right up to 1932 or 1934. Time has mellowed the views of quite a number of us. It would be a magnificent gesture if these men, who have been fighting their cause for almost 30 years, should now be given recognition by the State even at this late hour.

Undoubtedly — and this is well known to the Minister, to Deputies and to the country generally — very valuable national service was rendered by the men who served in the R.I.C. at that critical period in our history. They showed their support of national ideals to the extent of being dismissed for them or of themselves resigning out of sympathy with the cause. Not only will the Minister find that all these men rendered services of that particular kind but he will also discover that on leaving the force they supported the National Movement. Many of them became members of the Volunteers. Many of them became supporters of the Volunteers. Generally speaking, all of them rendered national service. Though it was not sufficient to entitle them to the recognition contained in a certificate of military service under the Pensions Acts nevertheless, taken in conjunction with their previous action, it was such service as would, I think, entitle them to recognition at this stage.

These cases were originally investigated by what was known as the Batt O'Connor Commission in 1923. There were subsequent commissions in 1929 and 1934 but the result of the findings of these commissions was to leave out approximately 400 and it is that 400 that has dwindled down now to approximately 30.

There is a debt due by the State to these men. Their action at the time was very valuable from a national point of view. It deserves public recognition. As to what form that recognition would take, I do not want to say at the moment but I do think that the Minister ought to say that he would have the position reconsidered now. If he does, he may find good grounds on which pensions should be paid to these particular individuals now.

I have no intention of delaying the House in regard to this matter. I understand that quite a number of Deputies are anxious to speak on the motion. I certainly recommend it very strongly to the generous consideration of the House.

Mr. McMenamin

Would the Deputysay were these men all under 4 years' service?

Captain Cowan

Yes, definitely.

Mr. McMenamin

What was their average age?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the motion being seconded?

Mr. A. Byrne

I second the motion. There is no man in the House who knows more of the service given by these men than the present occupant of the front bench. These men got certain guarantees and promises from the men who were active at that time. I remember the late Michael Collins promising the civil servants and members of the D.M.P. as well as the R.I.C. that any risk they took would not be forgotten by the State. I hear that there are only 28 of these men alive now, some of them in great want. It would be a very handsome gesture and a generous action on the part of the State to give these men substantial grants, if they do not give them pensions. These men are reaching an age that prevents them earning their own living.

Having regard to the promises made, the men who took the risk should be rewarded. Time has mellowed most of us, even those who may not have agreed in those days. I am of the opinion that these men should not suffer hardship. They should be recognised by the State which was established because men took risks.

I have heard of individual cases, not only of men but of women, who are at present suffering very grave hardships and living in unhealthy surroundings in the City of Dublin.

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion refers to members of the R.I.C.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am making only a passing reference to draw attention to the fact that there are people who are neglected, people who gave service to the State in those days. Something should be done. It does not require many words from me, having regard to what has been said, to recommend the motion and the people concernedin it to the Minister and the Government.

Mr. Moran

It is not quite clear to me what is envisaged by the mover of this motion. I assume, from the wording of the motion, that a number of the people contemplated would be in receipt of pensions in respect of their service when they resigned from the R.I.C. If that is so, members of the House would like to see the motion recast. If the proposal was that these persons might qualify under some provision, such as the special allowances for medal-holders, if they are in bad health or unable to earn their livelihood, in the ordinary course, possibly, a good case could be made for them. I understand that quite a number of these people draw I.R.A. pensions. A number of them would have qualified for service pensions under the Military Service Pensions Acts.

I am rather at a loss to know the particular class that Deputy Cowan is endeavouring to benefit by this motion. It appears to me that the motion would cover a man who, possibly, had 15 or 20 years' service in the R.I.C. and who, therefore, would have qualified under their regulations at that time for the rather generous and substantial pensions that were provided.

Before I could express my view by vote on this motion I should like to know exactly the type of people the Deputy has in mind. If they are people with a small number of years' service in the R.I.C., who resigned at the request of the First Dáil, I imagine that there would be very few of them left who are not provided for in some other way. At this hour of the day, possibly a better way of dealing with the few people who are left would be to bring them within the benefits of the special allowances. I would have great sympathy with men who were disabled in any way. From the way this motion is drafted it is not clear as to the class that is in mind. I had not an opportunity of listening to Deputy Cowan when he was speaking on the motion. I should like to have more information before definitely committing myself one way or the other. It seems to me that the motion is muchtoo wide in its present form to get my support as an individual in this House.

Mr. Allen

Over the years we in this House have heard a great deal about dismissed members of the R.I.C. and members of the R.I.C. who resigned. In the very first year of the State, 1922, a commission was set up to consider this matter and that commission made certain recommendations to the then Minister. As a result, many allowances were paid. On the change of Government, about 1934, another commission of inquiry was established by the House. Recommendations were made.

As a result of both commissions, many men who had established that they had resigned for patriotic motives and had suffered serious loss arising out of their resignations, got pensions and allowances. I think it would be correct to say that those who had not three years' established service or who had less did not get any allowances. Whether it is for that section that Deputy Cowan is moving his motion I am not quite clear but I infer that it is.

Mr. Moran

The motion does not say that.

Mr. Allen

The motion does not exactly say that but I assume it is, because those are the only sections after two commissions of inquiry examined carefully into each indidividual case and on hearing evidence reached certain conclusions. It must be recognised also that there were representatives on each commission who had been closely connected with the national struggle at that time. I believe that their recommendations would be tempered in favour of those who established that their resignation arose out of their national sympathies. I cannot see where there is any big grievance for the remainder of those who had less than three years' service. After all, 1916 took place, and we had a progressive effort from that date on to win the independence of this country, and where a young man saw fit to go into the R.I.C. after 1916 or 1917 it is very hard to imagine how they can establish that, even if theycame out afterwards, their service arose for patriotic reasons alone. I feel that way about it. We all remember those years—a big number of us here remember them—when thousands of other young men gave of their best. I assume that if those men with less than three years' service joined the I.R.A. and served in the I.R.A. during the years up to the Truce of 1921, they could establish having military service under the Military Service Pensions Act.

Any of them who joined were young men of military age and if they joined the R.I.C. after 1916 or 1917 and then resigned I assume that if they did it for patriotic motives they joined the I.R.A. then and that would be proof, if it was necessary, that they did resign for that purpose. If they gave service in 1920 or 1921 they could establish military service, and, as Deputy Moran has pointed out, be entitled to military service pensions under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act. Like ourselves and like most of those who took part in that time they are going on in years, and if they are broken down in health and entitled to service medals and to special allowances after having served in the I.R.A., even if they did not establish military service under the 1924 or the 1934 Act they would be entitled to special allowances, having broken down in health and being unable to earn their livelihood at the present time. The House over the last 30 years having established two commissions of inquiry which contained men who had taken part in that effort at the time, my mind would be that the reports and recommendations they made to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Justice, whoever was responsible— the Minister for Finance, I think it was—would have been accepted and as far as was humanly possible justice was done at the time both in 1924 and in 1934 to all those who had a reasonable case; and I doubt if those other young men who joined after 1916 or 1917 have much of a case. We all felt at the time that men who joined the R.I.C. then were enemies of this country. That was the feeling of the rank and file of the people, and if theycame out afterwards and joined the I.R.A., well they took their place in the line with the Volunteers in this country who gave the same service as thousands of others and took their chance whether they got broken in health or in limb or otherwise, without hope of fee or reward for their service.

I doubt if Deputy Cowan in introducing this motion has established any case. We all have sympathy for those who served the nation and who lost their health or their means of livelihood. There was always great sympathy in this House for that section, and if an outstanding case could be made at any time we would never lack sympathy in that direction. But different Governments set up those commissions of inquiry, and both Governments, it would appear, were sufficiently interested to set them up and have those investigations made; and, the Minister for Finance having honoured the recommendation made in each individual case, it is very hard to see at this stage what more could be done for the ones who were left out. After all we had the Military Services Pensions Act for I.R.A. men who served the country, and many thousands of those who did give service, outstanding service, in many directions to the nation, in the Volunteers, in the Republican Army of the time, failed to establish their right to service pensions. That is going on still. There will be many thousands of those men who we all know did give a big lot of service but will be unable under any possible code and with the best will in the world from everyone to establish their right to military service pensions. I take it that those R.I.C. who resigned at that time failed to establish that they were persons who came within the code or within the Act as it was passed at the time. That is my opinion about the whole thing, and I do not think there is anyone in this House or any group in the slightest degree hostile to those men. We would be quite willing to help them. If the right was established to get help at State expense it would be forthcoming. It is now, I suppose, 35, 36 or 37 years since the events of that time, and the fact that it was taken up so earlyafter 1922 and that those commissions of inquiry were held showed that there was ample opportunity and ample evidence available fresh in people's minds to establish the motives that influenced them to leave that force at the time. I have not a bit of doubt about that.

For that reason I cannot see how Deputy Cowan can or could hope to have a motion like he has proposed passed and the whole thing opened up again. I am sure that he has probed into this matter fully and that he realises the efforts that have been made by Dáil Éireann over the last 30 years to do justice to individuals and groups of individuals who were in the R.I.C. at that time and claim to have served the nation afterwards. I am sure that if he gives it further consideration he will not pursue that motion any further. There is nothing more I have to say on this matter but that I am satisfied in my own mind that anyone who examines it will be convinced that members of the Governments here over the last 30 years did what they could to ensure that no one who had a good case was left out or was not fairly treated.

Mr. Hickey

Could we have the minimum and the maximum number of years' service these men had in the R.I.C.?

Acting-Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

I have some figures which I can give to the Dáil and which perhaps will enable Deputies to consider this question better than they could on the basis of the facts that have been given up to this moment. Deputy Cowan said that there were only 30 disappointed applicants left alive and that it would not cost very much to deal with their cases. In this matter it is not a question of money, Deputy Hickey will be glad to hear.

Mr. Hickey

I have an open mind on the matter.

Mr. Aiken

The people of the country and the representatives of the people were very grateful to the men who had been in the R.I.C. prior to 1916 and who, when the revolution started, resigned their posts in thatBritish organisation and helped the people to get rid of foreign occupation in this part of the country. Round 1919 an appeal was made to them by the Dáil or the Sinn Féin organisation to throw off their uniforms and to go out and join the forces of the country fighting for freedom at that time. In 1922 a committee was set up consisting of three men who were sympathetic to any of the applicants who could prove to their satisfaction that they had resigned from political motives or motives of sympathy with the national cause. They were also sympathetic, of course, to such members of the R.I.C. as were dismissed by the British Government because they displayed sympathy with the national cause. The first committee, the committee of 1922, which went into this matter had before them in all 1,136 applications and they recommended awards to 631 of these applicants. Their terms of reference were to go into all these applications and make a recommendation to the Minister for Finance of the time. The recommendations they made were accepted by the Minister and pensions were granted.

In 1934 another committee was set up to review the cases of those who had been turned down by the 1922 committee. Again that committee was manned by people who were sympathetic to any member of the R.I.C. who had resigned or who was dismissed for political reasons. They examined each case very thoroughly. They had before them 330 applications. The original committee had 1,136 and they recommended awards to 631. About half of those who had been turned down in 1922 appealed to the 1934 committee. Going into these 330 cases, the 1934 committee found that 115 were outside their terms of reference—I shall explain that term shortly—and they gave awards to an extra 50. So we have the situation that of all the members of the R.I.C. who had resigned during the Black and Tan War or who were dismissed and who came before the committees about half of them had their applications accepted and got pensions.

In 1934 the present Minister forFinance was Minister for Finance also, and he included in the terms of reference to the committee a direction that no claim should be entertained in respect of any ex-member of the R.I.C. who had completed less than three years' service before his resignation or dismissal. Now, we can see the reason for that; Deputy Allen alluded to it. When the 1916 revolution occurred, most of the people of the country revolted against the action the British Government took to suppress that revolution and to punish the leaders, and it was felt that if a man joined the R.I.C. after 1916 it would be very hard to prove that his resignation within a few years was due to political motives. That was the reason for imposing a limit of three years. The 1934 committee when presenting their report to the Minister for Finance said:—

"In a case where an applicant has joined the Constabulary after Easter Week, 1916 and had little more than the minimum three years' service, the committee required the clearest evidence of the applicant's national sympathy before deciding to report favourably."

The fact is that no Minister for Finance has been prepared over all these years to issue the necessary certificate for the grant of a pension to men who served in the constabulary for less than three years. Deputy Allen pointed out that there are large numbers of people all over the country, indeed the majority in one way or another, who gave service to the cause at that time. Very few of them gave service of the nature required to qualify for a pension under the Military Service Pensions Act.

In 1946 or thereabouts the present Minister for Defence introduced legislation to secure that men who had given service in the Volunteers of a type that did not qualify for an active service medal, even though they had not the active service required for a pension, would be taken care of if they fell ill if they could prove that they had such service. No one can say that was ungenerous. Indeed, I do not know of any country after a revolution or a war which has made such provisionfor those who fought in the revolution or in the war, or who served without having been on active service, as this country has.

Over the years, we have paid many millions of pounds. Governments always find it hard to get money. They incur certain opposition when they propose taxation, but no Government here has refused to take the responsibility of proposing the taxes necessary to provide for the military service pensions, or the special provision made for the members who fall ill and who are unable to work, or for those members of the R.I.C. who proved their case either to the committee in 1922 or to the committee in 1934.

It is not because of the money involved that any Government refused to grant those pensions. All the Governments were anxious to make provision for those members of the R.I.C. who were able to convince either of these committees that they had a case. The Governments were sympathetic to the applicants and were prepared to make the money available.

Deputy Cowan stated that we are inclined as the years go on to put a very favourable construction on the services rendered in those days. That is true. But we cannot allow our sympathy for the case of any individual at the moment to draw us back to reopening and rehearing the cases 30 years after the events, when evidence is becoming difficult to collect and when recollections of the events of these times are getting somewhat dim in the memory of any possible witnesses.

The committee in 1922 held their sessions, made their inquiries and examined the witnesses within a few years after the applicants had resigned or been dismissed. They were in a position at that time to collect evidence from people who could be depended upon reasonably to remember the events of those days. It would be very difficult at the present time, even if we were convinced that there was some merit in Deputy Cowan's proposition, to get reliable evidence. I agree with what Deputy Cowan said, that very valuable service was rendered by anumber of the men who were in the R.I.C. in those days and who resigned or were dismissed and that has been recognised by the State in the provisions made for the pensioners who proved their cases.

Deputy Cowan's motion asks that legislation be introduced to deal with this matter. He requests the Government to consider the introduction of proposals for legislation to enable pensions to be paid to all these applicants. The fact is that, if the matter were to be reopened, no legislation would be necessary.

Legislation was passed in 1923 which enabled the Minister for Finance in 1934 to review these cases. All these applications were dealt with both in 1923 and again in 1934 under Section 5, sub-section (1), of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923, and that subsection reads as follows:—

"The Minister for Finance may from time to time by Order authorise the grant of pensions, allowances or gratuities to persons who resigned or were dismissed from the R.I.C. on or after the 1st day of April, 1916, and before the 6th day of December, 1921, and whose resignations or dismissals from that force are certified under the hands of the Ministers for Home Affairs and Finance to have been caused by their national sympathies, and may by any such Order regulate and appoint the rates and scales of such pensions, allowances, or gratuities, and the conditions under which the same are to be payable, and may by any such Order prescribe the penalties for any fraudulent conduct in relation to an application for any such pension, allowance, or gratuity."

The Orders that have been made under that section from time to time do not specify any minimum period of service for a pension. The refusal of pensions has been the result of Ministerial policy. I have pointed out that the two committees of inquiry, one appointed in 1922 and the other in 1934, were asked to report favourably in cases in which they considered the resignations and dismissals were caused by the national sympathies ofthe resigned or dismissed men. There were no instructions issued to the committee in 1922 that any differentiation should be made in their report based on the length of service of the applicants, but when their report came to the Department of Finance at that time it was decided that no pension would be awarded to a former member of the R.I.C. who resigned between 1919 and 1921, the years of the Black and Tan war, whose service amounted to less than four years, and no former members, with less than three and a half years' service, were granted a pension.

The differentiation that was made by the Minister at that time was made on the basis of the discretion which was allowed to him under the Act, and he was not obliged to grant a pension in any case, but he did take a decision to grant a pension where a favourable report was made and the applicant had more than four years' service in the R.I.C. Four years, of course, would have meant that the applicant concerned had joined before 1916 and before the revolution at that time started.

When it came to 1934, when there was a great deal of agitation to review these cases, the Minister for Finance of that time appointed another sympathetic committee to go into the matter, but he did give them as terms of reference that they were not to consider the case of any man who had less than three years' service in the R.I.C. It was, as a result of that direction to the committee, that they turned down as being outside their terms of reference 115 of the 330 applicants, but they did grant awards to a further 50 applicants. When one takes into account the circumstances of the time in which these men resigned and when one takes into consideration that the group of which this motion speaks joined tht R.I.C. after 1916, I think no one can say that either of the committees approached their work other than with sympathy or that they had any bias against the applicants who had asked to have their cases looked into. Indeed, I think that in all the circumstances any person from outside who examines this matter willsay that the members of both these committees must have been extremely sympathetic when they granted pensions to more than half the applicants.

Deputy Cowan seems to be basing the case in this particular motion on a wrong assumption, and that is that legislation would be required in order to review these pensions. Legislation would not be required. I do not think that any Minister for Finance could be more sympathetic than the present Minister for Finance, and in what he would regard as legitimate cases I do not think that any Minister for Finance would be more generous in a directive to a new committee, if it were set up, than the present Minister for Finance was in his terms of reference to the committee in 1934 when he reduced the standards and the period of service from four years, as it had been under the committee of 1922, to three years.

Indeed, I doubt if we went to the rounds of appointing another committee 30 years after the event and nearly 20 years after the appointment of the committee that reviewed the cases in 1934—if we picked at random, from all sides of the House, a committee of three or six or any other number—that their report would be in any way different from the reports of the two committees that reviewed the cases in 1922 and 1934. I think that Deputy Cowan introduced this motion because he thought that legislation would be necessary. It would not be necessary.

I think it would we unwise for the Dáil, if another motion were put down, a motion asking the Minister for Finance to set up a new committee, to vote for such a motion. The present motion, in any event, is unnecessary. If a motion to set up a new committee were before the Dáil, I feel that most members would feel like myself about it, and that is that there must be finality to these reviews at some time or another, and that we here, so long after the event, are not in a position to deal any more generously or to give any more favourable consideration to these cases than that which was given to them by the two committees in 1922 and 1934.

Mr. J. Brennan

I was particularlyinterested in this motion for a number of reasons. I was glad to hear the Minister speaking before I attempted to say anything on it. As one of the new members of the House I would not have had the experience which the Minister obviously has and, in fact, I was not aware of the different attempts made at different times to appease the grievances of these people throughout the country.

Since my election to the Dáil I received a good many representations from members who claimed to have very good cases and who, so far as I was concerned, were able to put forward very impressive cases which I thought would command any special attention which any Government could give. But in view of what the Minister has said and particularly in view of his statement regarding the question of legislation—that it is not necessary to have legislation introduced to cover these cases at all—I do not really see that I can be as enthusiastic about the motion as I might have been.

I do know that the activities of certain members of that force during those years were such as to cast the position of those who are in the category we are discussing now into contrast with those who remained in the force loyal to the Crown, and to put them in a very favourable light indeed. I would be inclined to be very sympathetic to any member of that body who at any stage in the fight for freedom came out in sympathy with the comparatively few people who were making the struggle at that time.

But when one considers the statements made now by the Minister, a point which did not strike me forcibly if at all, until now, is the question of those who joined after 1916. It is indeed difficult to see how those men could have any good, sound grounds to establish a just claim to any reward even though they relinquished their service as they claimed in sympathy with the national movement at that time. The fact that they joined after the Insurrection of 1916 would indicate that their sympathies were not so much with those who had initiated that movement, and it is doubtful and I could easily see it would be verydifficult for those to make a case for any reward as a result of any action no matter what it might have been after that.

We all realise that many of these men were of inestimable value to the movement at that time. They were just as valuable as other members were destructive. Without the services of these men on the side of the Crown it would perhaps have been impossible for strangers fighting in another country to meet with any success. They became the eyes and ears of the enemy and in view of that, those of them who were big enough and brave enough to come out in sympathy with the movement, particularly those who took an active part in the movement after relinquishing their service, would at all times deserve any consideration any Government could give them.

Two committees were set up, as the Minister pointed out, and these have carefully sifted all the information available to them and no doubt they must have had some good reason for not meeting all the case that came before them at the time. I can easily see Deputy Captain Cowan's point that as time goes on we can see these men's cases and the whole position in a different perspective but I can also see the Minister's case when he says that as time goes on it is more difficult to establish facts. Many of those who might be in a position to verify facts have passed away. Many of the circumstances surrounding the cases have become so obscure that it would hardly be possible to verify things that could have been easily verified when the actions were fresh in the minds of the people and which could have been dealt with by the original committee.

There is something to be said for Captain Cowan's remark that as time goes on we shall see these men's cases in a new perspective. At least time does give us the opportunity to appreciate more fully the worth of the services they rendered, even those who relinquished their service and abandoned the force and did not become what one might term "active" in the I.R.A. movement afterwards. A great many of them did become most usefulmembers in the guerilla tactics which were being pursued at the time. Others remained inactive but were helpful in the matter of intelligence. Since legislation is not necessary to have their cases examined as to what reward may be due to them, since such legislation as is asked for in this motion is not necessary, it might be possible for the Minister at some stage to examine the question and ascertain if any injustice has been done by the actions of the previous committees. Some 1,500 cases were dealt with, but it must be remembered that a large number of that 1,500 did not succeed, and one can easily visualise the position of a man who had remained in the R.I.C. at the time. He would now be in receipt of a rather generous pension. One can visualise the position, then, of those who did not, as a result of their action, qualify for such pension and subsequently failed to qualify for any reward, pension or remuneration whatever from the native Government in this country. Those people, too, no doubt, find themselves in a rather peculiar position, and it is only natural to expect that they would be anxious to have their cases reviewed. As I said, I have had a number of such cases. I have had people putting their grievances before me, grievances that I believed were well founded. However, as a result of what the Minister has said, I have learned a good deal with regard to the attempt that was made in the past to meet all the cases that came before the two committees set up to sift the evidence. The Minister has said that finality has to be reached at some stage in all these things, but I would be rather sorry to think that finality has been reached in this particular matter. We know that legislation is not necessary and it should be possible, therefore, at some stage to re-examine these cases in order to ascertain if an injustice has been done.

I would be anxious to learn if the particular cases that were put before me came before either of these committees. If they did go before those committees, what was the result? There was a right of appeal. I canhardly believe that any ex-member of the R.I.C. would have neglected to have his case examined by one or other of these committees. If they did neglect to put their cases before these committees and have them examined it would be very difficult for them at this stage to satisfy another committee or investigating body that they really have a claim. We must take it, then, that these people had their claims investigated and possibly appealed. Alternatively, if they did not do that they must not have gone before the committees at all, and their case for recognition at this stage would be a rather weak one.

The fact remains that there is a number of people who failed to qualify for an R.I.C. pension, the kind of pension that many of their comrades are enjoying who served until they were disbanded. There are others who not merely were entitled to a pension owing to relinquishing their posts but also failed to qualify under any legislation enacted by our own Government. These people have a genuine claim. They have a grievance. Perhaps a small number resigned at the time and are not able to prove that their action was prompted by sympathy with the movement. Possibly there are some whose subsequent actions did not justify their claim being listed amongst those successful in securing pensions. Whether that is so or not, as the Minister has pointed out, the number in that category is comparatively small. Probably there are some genuine cases and it may be possible to have these cases investigated again with a view to ascertaining whether or not there is a grievance.

As I said, I was particularly interested in this motion because of the number of cases that have been put to me. Only a month ago, I wrote to the Minister asking if it would be possible to have these cases reviewed. I gave a few examples and I asked him to let me know the facts. Some who took an active part in the movement after resigning from the R.I.C. qualified for pension under the Military Service Pensions Acts. Others, who relinquished their posts in sympathy with the movement, did not subsequentlytake an active part in that movement, and possibly it is difficult to draw the line as to where one should stop.

I am genuinely in sympathy with those who may have a genuine claim and whose cases deserve further consideration, but I would be interested to know whether those who are seeking redress would come into the category of those who did not ask to have their cases reviewed by either of the commitees set up for that purpose. We have a certain amount of sympathy with those we know are genuinely aggrieved. Legislation is not necessary in this particular matter and, bearing that in mind and the fact that the number is small, I would like to know if the Minister will consider at some stage reviewing any cases that yet remain to be dealt with.

Dr. Hillery

In recent years we have had to deal with a variety of claims for pensions from people directly or indirectly associated with the fight for freedom. People lay claim to pensions because of actions of the most tenuous nature and I think that many are now depending rather on the compassion of the Government than on any real concrete basis. I believe that the people on whose behalf Deputy Cowan has put down this motion come within that particular classification. He is not quite clear about the type of person for whom he wants to legislate but it would appear that he is pleading a case for those who had only three years' service in the R.I.C., before resigning from that body at the request of the First Dáil. It is probably fair to say that people with only that service joined the R.I.C. at a time when such joining would be a sign of lack of sympathy with the national movement. While at this time we may have compassion for the present position of these people, it is quite clear that the earlier commissions set up to examine their cases regarded these people as not acting for nationalistic motives.

I do not think that Deputy Cowan made a good enough case or gave sufficient information. I would be very interested to know the career of this particular group of men after they had resigned from the constabulary. Atthat time they were young men, fit men, and there was a fight on in this country. If they took part in that fight then they are already provided for in the Pensions Acts. If they did not take part in that fight, presumably, they went into other employment and did not suffer hardship such as one might conjure up when picturing a man resigning from a job which was his only source of income.

The wording of the motion would give the impression that we are discussing all these people who resigned. It is difficult, therefore, to criticise the people on whose behalf the motion is put down without seeming to criticise the long established officer or constable who resigned his post at great personal loss. I am satisfied that the earlier commissions were sympathetic towards all these people because nobody could be other than sympathetic towards the people in the Constabulary at that time who fell in with the movement for independence. Apart from the loss of livelihood, these men had a very big decision to make. Those who were established in the Constabulary must have found it much more difficult to take the side of the rebels than it would have been for a man who had not been on the side of law and order before that. Such considerations would have been very lively in the minds of the members of the commission who examined these claims and I doubt if they overlooked the claims of such men.

The motion calls for legislation, which is not necessary. It would be possible for the Minister for Finance to question again the possibility of giving pensions to men who were overlooked at that time. There are others who had connections with the national movement much less tenuous than the connections of these men who joined the R.I.C. and almost immediately resigned from it. There are people who were not directly active in the fight for independence but who so aided those who were active that they are far more deserving of our consideration, if we do continue to supply pensions to everybody connected in any way with the movement.

I do not believe that Deputy Cowan should press this motion. He has nobasis for it since it calls for legislation which is already in existence. But, if there should be among those people anybody who now suffers grave hardship as a result of his resignation from the R.I.C., I am sure nobody in this House would wish that his case should be overlooked. In a private way, without setting up any big machinery, the Minister could further investigate the claims of these people. It is hardly necessary to have a discussion in this House. We all have acquaintances who resigned from the R.I.C. and who felt that by doing so they served well and who now feel that the country is not doing right by them.

As a State, we are more generous to those who served our country in so far as we are able to be than other countries are with people in a similar position. I suggest to Deputy Cowan that he should withdraw the motion and that he should ask the Minister privately to make his own investigations to ensure that anybody who deserves, not our compassion, but our justice, for what he has done, anybody who has served the cause of Irish freedom should not suffer now.

Mr. Gilbride

Representations have been made to me also on behalf of these men. Our sympathy goes out to them. I was interested in their case but, having heard the Minister pointing out the difficulty of reopening this matter and saying that legislation is not necessary, I am convinced that Deputy Cowan would be well advised to withdraw the motion and to ask the Minister to ensure by some other means that no injustice has been done to any of these men.

A short time ago a very peculiar case came to my notice. I received a letter from a constituent who was Battalion O/C in County Sligo informing me that on the instructions of the then Dáil he wrote to a young man who was a neighbour of his and asked him to resign from the R.I.C. I want to say in passing that I believe this young man did join the R.I.C. after 1916.

I would not be prepared to go as faras some Deputies went to-night in that connection. We must remember that at that period we were in the throes of a European war. We must remember that in this country men who up to that time had been our leaders were asking the young men of this country to join the English army.

Many a young man joined the English army and many another young man joined the R.I.C., as he thought, as a police force, and it was only when they were in and found the work they were expected to do that they realised their position. This man whom I am telling you about who resigned and came home at the invitation of the battalion commander of the I.R.A., joined the I.R.A.—I am not sure of the date—and served until the Truce. He was reared in an out-of-the-way place in the country, and during this period he was left on his own. While he was in the R.I.C. his mother died and she was the only relative he had in the world. After the Truce, upon the outbreak of the civil war, when he saw the position he cleared out to America like many another young Irishman. I do not know whether this man's case ever came before any of the commissions. I do not believe it did; but he now finds himself after all those years, after resigning a good job, looking at men who stuck on in the R.I.C. drawing pensions while he finds himself neglected and forgotten. This man who asked him to resign feels that he is responsible for his position, and I may tell you that he feels very sore about it, and had written me some very sore letters. I know the difficulties in this case. I can see the position of the Minister and of the Government, that after 30 years it would be difficult to start the whole thing over again, and that it would be practically impossible to get proper evidence, but I would like to be satisfied that there is no injustice done to any of those men through no fault of their own, being away in America. This man did not have an opportunity of making his case, and I was just wondering while the Minister was speaking if the recommendations of the commissions were still in existence or if this man and others like him could still put their cases before the Minister.

The motion as it stands asking for legislation is not necessary, but if there are cases like this, as I am sure there may be, I wonder would it be possible for the Minister to receive representations on their behalf? Deputy Moran in the course of his speech suggested that these men who resigned and who served in the I.R.A. were debarred from receiving a pension because they did not take part in a major action during their term with the I.R.A., but on the other hand they are now eligible, owing to recent legislation, if they are in receipt of a medal, to receive a special allowance.

Mr. Hickey

Those are fellows, of course, who took part in some activity of the I.R.A.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They must be disabled.

Mr. Gilbride

While this young man I mentioned had activity he had no major engagement, and for that reason he was debarred from receiving a pension, but resigning from the R.I.C. and joining with the I.R.A., and serving with them for a number of years would, I think, entitle him to a service medal. I do not think that the Minister, or any member of this House, would like to think that after all those years that man would now be badly in want and broken in health. He will say to the man who asked him to resign: "Well, only for you I would now be drawing a good pension and I would be independent." I think that figures have been given here to-night that there are only 28 men now left out. If there are any special cases like that I would ask Deputy Cowan if he was here to withdraw this motion and to appeal to the Minister, even at this late hour, that it was the desire of the members of this House if they knew any injustice was done that these men should be brought under a scheme for special allowances. That is all I have to say. I think the motion as it stands is not necessary. Deputy Cowan deserves the thanks of this House for giving an opportunity of discussing these things and of airing the grievances of any men who think they have a grievance.

Mr. J. Flynn

I would like to join with the other Deputies in having thismatter dealt with sympathetically. I am aware of a few cases where the men in my opinion were very harshly treated, and I think that through no fault of their own the commission of inquiry at that time could have done better for them. At the same time I have in mind men in other organisations who were also harshly treated in my opinion—the I.R.A. men who lost out under the various Pensions Acts, and who simply because of some technical point in regard to the interpretation of "active service" at one period or another were deprived of their right to a pension.

Mr. Hickey

Because they were not in any major operation although they were in danger every day of the week.

Mr. J. Flynn

I know that the Government have done their utmost, and that all Governments have tried to do their utmost to be fair to all concerned. The plea that I would make would be that Deputy Cowan would withdraw this motion asking for legislation. In my opinion there is no necessity for it. The Minister for Finance has stated that commissions of inquiry have been held, and it is a matter that cannot be dealt with by further legislation. The plea that I would make in the circumstances is that the Minister and the Government should consider cases where it can be proved beyond doubt that the R.I.C. men—and they are very few, in my opinion—who lost out their cases should again be dealt with and reconsidered at least, and side by side with them, with that type of case, I would also appeal to the Minister if it were possible to deal with men who served in the I.R.A., and who, like the men I have referred to, lost out through one reason or another.

I appealed some time ago to the Minister for Defence on behalf of a man who served in the Munster Fusiliers and who came back to fight with the I.R.A., but simply because he was not in the district at the particular time when a major engagement took place—it was during the Black and Tan period—he was debarred from receiving a pension. In my opinion, he was justly entitled to it, but once the decision of the Referee was arrived at his casecould not be reconsidered. I still believe that something should be done for cases of that type. The same remarks apply to a few of the men covered by Deputy Cowan's motion. I am aware of the case of one man from County Kerry who served in Galway. This man was transferred to different areas, but through lack of evidence from the officers concerned, there was a missing link, if you like. There was no continuing evidence to show that he had resigned at a certain period, and his application was rejected. He is now in very poor circumstances.

I think the suggestion made by Deputy Gilbride, that we should appeal to the Minister again in particular cases is a very good one. There may still be a way out of the difficulty. I realise that the Government have done their utmost in their efforts to be just to all citizens of the country, particularly to members of the I.R.A. However, as in other countries, there are bound to be harsh decisions sometimes which are the fault of nobody in particular but which generally arise because of the different interpretations put upon the Pensions Act. I believe that this motion, taking everything into consideration will serve a useful purpose in so far as it will direct the attention of the Government to cases of the type which have been mentioned. Everyone here is in sympathy with these cases. I hope something can be done, at least to have them reviewed and to see that justice is done to the applicants.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Having listened to the various Deputies who spoke to this motion, I think that the I.R.A. and the services rendered by them should not be coupled with the motion at all and that we should deal with the motion on its own merits solely. We have been informed by the Minister for Finance that previous Governments in this country set up two commissions, one in 1922-23 and another in 1934, to deal with this matter of former members of the R.I.C. who resigned at the request of the First Dáil or because of pressure brought to bear on them. I come from an area which is in close proximity toa district where one of the biggest mass resignations took place during that period. Many Deputies may remember when Divisional Commissioner Smith came down to Listowel. At that time his instructions and his advice to the R.I.C. were somewhat similar to that which we read of in the papers the other evening as being given by a particular British officer to his men out in Africa. That officer gave instructions to his subordinates to shoot at whomsoever they liked, provided they were black men. Divisional Commissioner Smith came to Listowel and his instructions to members of the R.I.C. who were mobilised and paraded at that centre, were to go out, at night singly to the cross-roads, remain inside ditches, listen to conversations and without giving an order or a command to halt, to shoot with effect at anybody who came along. Evidently it was hoped that, especially in North Kerry and the areas adjoining, amongst the young men who might receive the fatal bullets, there would be a large number of Volunteers or men associated with the Sinn Féin movement. To their credit be it said, over 20 men who listened to that address in the barrack square immediately downed their arms. They were placed under open arrest but eventually at great risk and great peril to their lives they got out of the force.

Mr. Hickey

They were in as much danger, then, as if they were in the I.R.A.

Mr. J.J. Collins

That is so. The one objection I have to the findings of the commissions in 1922-23 and 1934 is that these men were not treated equally favourably with the men who served with the British Forces up to the 11th July, 1921. I have in my native town one of the men who came out at that period. After he came out, he gave service to the I.R.A., not possibly sufficiently active to come within the category which Deputy Flynn mentioned. He might not have the chance of taking part in a major engagement but still he served with us until 11th July, 1921, and rendered us great service. We had another case in North Kerry of an R.I.C. sergeantwho arranged with the boys in County Clare to hand them over a police barrack. He was also from my area. He and the men who resigned in Listowel were very badly and poorly treated by successive Governments we have had in this country.

We have, thank God, as a result of the agitation carried on by the Fianna Fáil Administration, cast back on the British Government the onus for the payment of the R.I.C. pensions. They now hold themselves responsible for the payment of the pensions to the men who served them loyally during that period. I think it is particularly unfair to the men I have mentioned who resigned, that neither of the Governments here brought the pensions payable to them up to the standard of the pensions payable by the British to men who served the British Forces in this country up to 11th July, 1921. At the same time, I think it is not fair to try to couple this motion with I.R.A. activities. I can see no analogy between the services rendered by the I.R.A. and the services rendered by men who resigned in sympathy with the Volunteer movement and the Republican movement at that period.

I would support this motion of Deputy Cowan's in so far as it recognises that the Minister and the Goveernment already have powers to deal with the matter, as they already have given pensions to men who had served in the R.I.C. for longer than three years. I think it was very unfair of the commissions to isolate or ostracise men who, possibly through no fault of their own, in the period between 1916 and 1919, just because they did not recognise the seriousness of their action, joined the R.I.C. I have had personal experience during that period when in the I.R.A. of visiting the homes of some of these men in West Limerick and I say this to the credit of their parents, that when the position was put before them they had no hesitation in writing to their sons to get them to resign from the R.I.C. In at least six cases that I know of men who had served one and a half years or two years, and some of them possibly only six or nine months in theR.I.C., resigned in support of us. I believe it was drawing the line very fine that these commissions who reported on these cases did not give some recognition to these men for the service they rendered in resigning at that time from the R.I.C.

Although Auxiliaries and Black and Tans were brought into this country we all know it was the R.I.C. who hunted down and spied on the Volunteers and led the others to the homes that were destroyed. The men who remained in the R.I.C. were men who did their utmost to cripple the Volunteer movement by leading the onslaught of the Auxiliaries and Black and Tans on the homes of the Volunteers and our supporters. We are dealing now with about 100, or maybe 120, men who came out of the R.I.C. at that time when requested.

We find that the commissions in 1922 and 1934 did not consider these men worthy of being given some little bit of recognition. I therefore ask the Minister for Finance and the Government to reconsider the position even after 30 long years. They have some statutory provision by which they can give some consideration to these men whom, I am sure, Deputy Cowan had in mind when tabling this motion.

I am sorry Deputy Cowan is not in the House at the moment but, with my colleague Deputy Gilbride, I would ask him to withdraw the motion and leave the matter to the Government and to this House, composed as it is of all Parties, who I am sure will give sympathetic consideration to the handful of men whose cases we are now discussing.

Mr. Blaney

I am rather at a disadvantage in regard to this matter. I realise that many of the Deputies spoke from their own personal experience during the years in question of the force known as the R.I.C. However, during my short period here I have had brought to my notice on very many occasions the claims of a few men who come into the category of those referred to in this motion. Not knowing very much of the events of that time, their cases appear to me to be sound and in at least some casesthey appear to have a grievance. Some of the things I have heard to-night have cleared my mind at any rate. The commissions set up in 1922 and 1934 were empowered to hear and report on the cases of all applicants for pensions who had resigned or were dismissed from the R.I.C. at that time. I gather that possibly all these cases were gone into fairly well. Despite that, there are still a number of cases, not very many possibly, in which probably a mistake was made. The number of cases outstanding in which applicants have a grievance is not numerous. Under the system of Government which we have, when there are not a great many people who are complainants, very often it is not true to say that justice is always done or done as expeditiously as it might be.

References were made to-night to the question of resignation between the years 1916 and 1921 and the fact that unless there had been a minimum service of approximately three and a half years prior to resignation very little could be done for such people, and that in fact nothing was really done for them. There is, perhaps, some basis for the suggestion that it is rather difficult to understand how men came to join the R.I.C. after 1916 and within three and a half years decided to resign for political reasons. It occurs to me that possibly there may be something wrong about that. I wonder would the circumstances of these particular people and the environment in which they were brought up have had anything to do with that. Possibly these men were very young and, due to their environment and their circumstances, they were not fully aware of the true position at that time and it was only when they became members of the force and were asked to partake in some of the brutalities perpetrated that they realised it was their own flesh and blood, their own people, to whom they were actually causing suffering and hardship and as a result of that and their more mature years they thought that they should get out of the force. That is one point of view which can be put forward inextenuation of those who joined after 1916 and subsequently resigned.

There is another point of view, of course. The older men in this House are in a much better position to know the full facts than I am. But it occurs to me that possibly some of these men who joined after 1916 did so because they felt that the revolution or the rebellion in this country had been put down and would not occur again, but later it became evident to them that it was a dangerous thing to be in the R.I.C., and for that reason they got out. That is the other side of the picture. As I say, I do not feel competent in any way to come to a decision with regard to these matters. But if there are, as I believe there may be, some men who resigned or were dismissed at that time and who did not have the requisite service subsequent to their joining after 1916, then, as no legislation is necessary, I think that something should be done for them.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.