Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—Army Pensions.

Mr. K. Boland

I move—

That a sum not exceeding £1,103,170 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Wound and Disability Pensions, Further Pensions and Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 26 of 1923, No. 12 of 1927, No. 24 of 1932, No. 15 of 1937, No. 2 of 1941, No. 14 of 1943, No. 3 of 1946, Nos. 19 and 28 of 1949, No. 23 of 1953, and No. 19 of 1957); Military Service Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 48 of 1924, No. 26 of 1932, No. 43 of 1934, No. 33 of 1938, No. 5 of 1944, Nos. 11 and 34 of 1945, Nos. 7 and 29 of 1949, No. 5 of 1953 and No. 12 of 1957); Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities (No. 37 of 1936, No. 9 of 1948, No. 30 of 1950, No. 27 of 1952, No. 4 of 1953, and No. 17 of 1957); Payments in respect of Compensation for Members of the Local Defence Force (No. 19 of 1946 and No. 15 of 1949); and for sundry Contributions and Expenses in respect thereof, etc.

The total sum required for Army Pensions for 1958-59 is £1,654,750, which is a decrease of £2,380 on the Estimate for 1957-58.

The principal provisions of this Estimate are for pensions under the Military Service Pensions Acts; would and disability pensions, special allowances, dependents' allowances and gratuities under the Army Pensions Acts; and service pensions and gratuities under the Defence Forces (pensions) schemes in respect of service in the permanent Defence Force.

The only appreciable increase occurs in sub-head J—Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes. The increase of £47,000 in this sub-head is due to the increasing number of retired and discharged Army and Naval personnel for whom provision has to be made as well as to the introduction last year of a scheme of supplementary retired pay for certain officers on retirement who were awarded the 1916 Medal or the Service (1917-1921) Medal or both. This scheme—the Defence Forces (pensions) (amendment) (No. 2) scheme, 1957—was, it will be recalled, approved last November by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The only reductions, I think, that call for any comment are those under sub-head F—Allowances and Gratuities to Dependents, etc.—and sub-head I— Military Service Pensions. The reduction of £15,393 under sub-head F as compared with 1957-58 is due to the fact that, when the 1957-58 Estimate was being prepared, a large number of claims for allowances under Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1953, from relatives of deceased persons with pre-Truce service were under consideration and were likely to be decided in 1957-58. This accumulation has since been disposed of in the main. As regards sub-head I—Military Service Pensions—the 1957-58 Estimate was prepared on the basis that all outstanding claims would have been decided by the end of December last and that consequently the cost of new pensions, including arrears, would be high. This was not possible, however, with the result that the sub-head was rather overestimated.

I now expect that all outstanding applications and petitions under the Military Service Pensions Acts will have been disposed of by the 30th September next and this Estimate provides in sub-head C for the cost of the Referee and Advisory Committee for six months only.

I hope that the brief comments which I have made will assist Deputies in their examination of the Estimate. If any further explanations are required I shall endeavour to give them.

General MacEoin

I am rather disappointed with the Minister's rather cryptic statement on this Vote. The Minister is, no doubt, aware that there are serious complaints in two sectors of the administration about payment of certain claims. When I became Minister I found that there was a serious situation relating to the holding of medals by certain people who claimed to have been members of Oglaigh na hÉireann and this was very much doubted. There was fairly strong evidence that a substantial number were not members. That information is at the disposal of the Minister. I tried to deal with it myself, but the Minister has made no comment on that aspect or what headway he has made in regard to it. It has brought about the situation in which practically every medal-holder is now suspect and a situation is arising in which when a person, who is entitled or feels he is entitled to a special allowance and is the holder of a medal to which he is properly entitled, makes an application, he is reinvestigated as if he were a doubtful character. I think that should not be.

While it is true that a great many people have died and are not available to certify, there is very substantial certification available to the Minister and his Department of which I think he could avail. I know it is not permissible to advocate legislation on a Vote, and I have no intention of doing so, but I should like to ask the Minister if he has examined proposals which I had dealing with this matter, dealing both with medals and the more important consideration, the winding up once and for all in a satisfactory manner—which I think is difficult—of this question of entitlement to military service certificates.

I left proposals, having gone as far as I could, in the Department and perhaps the Minister might be able to improve on them. I would commend to him in a very special way the reexamination of these proposals. I can assure him that, as far as this side of the House is concerned, he will get full co-operation and assistance in putting them into effect. That is something that has not been said on this side for a long time. I offer that to the Minister with all the goodwill I can muster. I think he should avail of it.

The Minister has told us that the Estimate that I had, was not sufficient for the payment of a very substantial number, "The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley." I had expectations and intentions, if the people had decided to allow the Government of which I was a member to remain in office, to have much larger payments made available but upon my new plan. The people of Ireland decided otherwise; there is nothing I can do about it and all I can say is that I commend the plan to the Minister for his consideration.

There has been a long struggle for recognition on the part of some of these people and it is a heartbreak that some of them have died without the recognition to which they were entitled. People are receiving recognition now at this late stage. I regret to say there was apparently always financial stringency so far as the Old I.R.A. was concerned. It is a pity, but we have to do the best we can with the material at hand and with whatever money the Minister for Finance for the time being can put at our disposal.

The Minister says the Board of Assessors will be wound up in six months but I would ask him not to be too hasty in that regard. They were wound up before, but it did not work, and it will not work, but if the Minister takes responsibility for the winding up and is able to convince everybody that justice has been done, it will be a great relief to the House and to everybody concerned. I wish the Minister good luck in his efforts in this long-drawn-out battle.

Mr. Carty

I find myself in complete agreement with Deputy General MacEoin in regard to special allowances. The record of the Department of Defence in the past year is anything but satisfactory in regard to these allowances. There have been interminable delays, and to my mind, inexcusable delays, in dealing with applications. Deputy MacEoin, when he was Minister, knew that people had got medals and certificates of service to which they were not entitled. As a result the Department started this verification of claims, but the pendulum has swung the other way and the Department has gone too far in having applications verified and reverified.

No later than last week I was visited by a battalion company leader who had been written to by the Department regarding applications he had verified early last October. He was written to in January this year and again in March. The Department stated that another officer had given different information and he was asked if he would then re-verify the verifications already made. That was asking the man if he was a liar when he made his first verification. That sort of thing should be stopped because these unfortunate people would not seek special allowances at this stage and would not go to the trouble of getting officers to verify their claims if they were not quite sure they were entitled to succeed. They know the Department has become very strict in this matter and know that they leave themselves open to penalties. Many of these people will be dead and gone—judging by the progress made in the Department now—before they will be awarded a certificate or a special allowance.

Another aspect of this matter is the means test applied to these people. It has become too rigorous and exacting. I have been told by social welfare officers that the test applied to applicants for special allowances is far more rigorous than that applied to applicants for old age pensions and that every iota of means, real or imaginary, must be put down by the social welfare officer. If a dependent of one of these holders of special allowances goes on holidays for a fortnight or a month, an appropriate deduction is made in the allowance. That is carrying the matter too far. That is something the Department of Social Welfare does not do in regard to widows' pensions or other pensions or allowances where dependents are involved.

I would ask the Minister to do two things, to speed up verification in regard to special allowances and not to be too rigorous about means. I know the Public Accounts Committee some years ago drew attention to the fact that people were getting money illegally. They never expected that these stringent checks and re-checks would be carried out as a result. Secondly, I ask the Minister to use more discretion in regard to the means test. It is far too rigorous and exacting. These people are entitled to some recognition by the State and it should not be as tardy as it has proved to be.

Mr. Sherwin

Being an old I.R.A. man, I have an interest in this subject. I know the whole set-up and I know a number of cases where persons got medals to which they were not entitled. In Dublin, before the Truce, I was a member of a company of Fianna. There was never much more than a dozen on parade, but during the Truce that number jumped to about 80. I would say that that was the position all round. It was a simple thing for people to support the claims of some of those who just came in during the Truce. I was told that Deputy MacEoin, when he was Minister, was reviewing this whole business and that it was a very big job. Perhaps that is why the Minister has decided that where special allowances come in the case will have to be reproved. I accept that. It is bad enough to know that a person, might have obtained a medal but that he should get pension as well, not having served, would be a disgrace.

On the question of Army pensions I always felt it was unfair for people to get pensions because they had pre-Truce active service and that the Civil War period should be taken into account. I understand the position is that if you had pre-Truce active service the Civil War period was taken into account but if you had pre-Truce service but not active service, then the Civil War period was not taken into account. If that is correct, it is most unfair because the Civil War should not be considered for service for anyone if it is not considered as service for everyone.

During the pre-Truce period, at least in the cities, only small numbers were active. Only small numbers were invited to be active. The view has often been held that only a few thousand fought. You would imagine that the other people were under the bed. There were more than a few thousand who served. The practice, as I remember it, was that only a few members out of a company would be needed for a particular duty and those same few men were always inivited by the officer in charge for such duty. The other men, though they desired activity, were not given the opportunity to engage in it. That happened in most of the city companies to my knowledge.

A very large number of men suffered a great deal during the Civil War. They lost their jobs and their liberty. Many of them had to leave the country and they never received as much as a week's money for all their trouble and loss. Those men should have received some form of gratuity to help them over that difficult period but those men were denied any help even from a latter-day Government on whose behalf they acted. As I said, it was not the fault of many men if they were not active. There was considerable suffering but only those who said they were on active service in the Tan War and in the Civil War received any benefit.

In respect of disability, a number of persons suffering grave disability never received any service pension. The reason was that when the first Disability Act came out you had to prove that your disability was due to service. In many cases, through lack of evidence or by reason of the fact that the disability then existent was only latent although later on it became aggravated, these men were turned down. However, there was in the Act a clause that where new evidence could be produced the Minister for Defence could reopen a case. At a later period an Act was brought in which provided that where it was shown that a person's disability was aggravated, though not directly caused, by service he was entitled to a pension, but in this later Act there was no section empowering the Minister to reopen a case where new evidence arose.

In most of the Acts there was a period for making application. If the application was not in by a certain date you could then make no claim. There was a number of cases where persons were not in a position to make their claim within the period prescribed in the Act and because there was no clause enabling the Minister to bring their case again before the board, they had to do without any form of assistance. The Minister should give a little thought to this matter, as well as the other matters I brought up—the question of medals, the question of those men who suffered during the Civil War period and who received no assistance. I shall say no more. I wanted an opportunity for the last 30 years to make those remarks.

Seán Mac Carthaigh

Is mian liom a rá go bhfuil a lán daoine fíor-bhuidheach den Aire as ucht a dhein sé na h-iarrataisí a bhí ann le blianta a ghlanadh suas agus breithiúntas sásúil a dhéanamh ortha. Le linn an tréimhse atá sé ann mar Aire, tá obair maith tabhachtach déanta aige agus tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh tortha tabhachtach ar na rudaí atá idir lamhaibh aige. Tá súil againn go léir ná luíonn sé sin ar an Aire go h-iomlán mar tá bord aige agus caithfidh sé brath ortha na casanna a scrúdú go cúramach ach ba mhaith an rud é dá ndéanfadh an tAire féachaint isteach ortha i dtreo is ná béadh aon mhoill fhada ortha.

I should like to say, Sir, how grateful many people are to the Minister who, in the short period he has been in office, has cleared up a number of difficult cases, cases that have been there for years, very troublesome cases of people who have been waiting for years for a decision. In a number of these cases judgement has been arrived at to the satisfaction of all concerned. We know that the Minister is not able to do everything. We know that he has a board on which he must depend to sift the evidence and bring in a verdict.

However, I would say that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction still. I would be inclined to agree with Deputy MacEoin when he says that the end of the year is a better time for the exercise of the functions of the board and for the making of inquiries. There are many people who were giving information and doing special work, people who were specially appointed to do special work, and the officers who could verify that they were doing that work have, in many instance, gone to their eternal reward. There are now left only a certain number of company or area officers who have some knowledge that these people were doing that work but who have not sufficiently detailed knowledge of it to justify the award of certificates.

These are officers of integrity and when they are prepared to give evidence on behalf of men who sacrificed themselves, even though they do not know the details of the service, I think it should be taken for granted that these men, having been so unselfish through the years, are not claiming anything to which they are not entitled. There is still a great deal of dissatisfaction is certain cases and I think that these cases should be reviewed before there is a final close— down on the verdicts. I agree with Deputy Carty that there is a good deal of delay in dealing with claims for special allowance. These are very difficult cases. In many instances there has to be medical verification and after that a means test. I know that there will be a certain amount of delay, but, in some cases, that delay had gone far beyond what should be expected in the circumstances.

The general position had been improved by the Minister. I hope he will continue in that way until the few outstanding claims of men—I would say there are only a few left in each company area—that can be verified by the company or battalion officers, will be verified so that when their cases close there will not remain a residue of discontent with regard to service which was so unselfish, so successful and rendered agaist great odds and which succeeded in establishing part of the State in freedom among the nations. Whatever doubt there may be in these cases the benefit should be given to the people concerned. Their claims should not be rejected because of matters of detail after so many years by members of a board who may be too exacting in these matters.

Mr. O'Donnell

One thing I detest is the shedding of crocodile tears. Year after year we see these crocodile tears shed in this House about the poor unfortunates who fought for the freedom of this country. When General MacEoin was Minister for Defence the thought of these gentlemen. Some of them had service in the Army of the State and he took steps to ensure that they would be permitted to continue to serve despite the fact that they had reached the normal retiring age.

These were men who fought in 1916 and who fought the Black and Tans and General MacEoin permitted them to retain their ranks in the Army for a further period of two years. One of the first actions that the present Government took was to retire these men compulsory and this House agreed with that. They were retired last November. We thought that certain economies would be effected be these retirements but they were no sooner retired when they were replaced by men of the same rank.

We now find an increase of £47,000 under sub-head J to provide pensions for these pre-Truce officers whom we compulsorily retired. We find men who could have remained in service for the next 18 months retired compulsorily and replaced by other men. We find them compulsorily retired and an increase of £47,000 in this sub-head to give them pensions. Then we come here with crocodile tears and say what we would love to do.

I agree with Deputy McCarthy. When we find a man who fought the Tans and never got a pension, who now finds himself down on his luck, with his health gone and who seeks a pension, it should be paid to him forthwith. These men have waited for 30 years and have asked the State for nothing. When such men lose their health why should investigating officers spend years investigating their claims? I know of one case and I may say that the present Minister was not the Minister in charge when the case was being investigated. I was particularly interested and after fighting the Minister and his Department for 18 months we succeeded in getting a special allowance of £90 a year. However, on the morning I was notified of that award I was also notified of the unfortunate man's death. He was a gentleman named O'Donnell from the village of Kincasslagh in Donegal. I am not giving a fictitious name.

I see a Deputy in the Government back benches appears to doubt my work. All this is quite true; on the very morning of his death I received notification. I wrote the Department and asked: "Will you even give some little grant towards the funeral expenses of this unfortunate veteran who fought for his country and died as a result of that of declining health?" Not one solitary penny was forthcoming. Those are the things that make one feel futile in one's efforts to do something for these unfortunate.

The Minister is a young and active man and he could cut out this red tape. He has had some experience of the Army himself. He knows the position of these unfortunates. They do not ask for this pittance until the very last minute, until they have been deprived of their health. In the name of providence, let us speed thing up and give these people the allowances to which they are entitled. I join with Deputy MacEoin, Deputy Sherwin, Deputy McCarthy and Deputy Carty in appealing to the Minister to cut out these pin-pricking investigations and pay to these people—the last few left —the special disability allowances to which they are entitled.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to raise a few points in connection with sub-head J. in this Estimate. I hope that the Minister will be a little bit more accurate in his figures in this connection than when he was replaying to the debate on the main Estimate in relation to the expenditure on Defence. When the Dáil resumes after Ester I shall take the opportunity of having the exact figures with regard to the pay of the privates in the last 12 months clarified in comparison with the pay of the civilians and civil servents attached to the Army. I still maintain that the civilian employees and the civil servents had emoluments almost £300,000 in excess of the pay received by the privates. Those figures cannot be contradicted.

I pointed out that there was an increase of £37,000 in the Estimate for Defence, that there was a further increase which should have been shown in that Estimate but which was transferred for administrative purpose to Vote 58, namely, Army Pensions. The majority of the sub-heads in Vote 58 deal with the Old I.R.A., military service pensions and so forth, but the Defence Forces proper have now been brought within the scope of that Vote and I see no reason why the sub-head covering pensions for the regular Defence Forces should not be included in the Estimate for Defence itself so that the public might have a true picture of the total expenditure under the Defence Estimate and on the defence programme.

The Minister pointed out recently that a member of officers were being retired. I understand many of them are quite capable, fit and intelligent enough to serve for a further period. The cost of retiring pay this year is £128,859. But that is not the full figure because it does not take into account the extra moneys that will be needed to pay the pensions of the officers whom the Ministers recently retired. There is a note at the foot of page 333 of the Book of Estimate, which states:—

Add:—

For probable additional charges:—

Retired pay (officers)	£29,635
Supplementary Retired pay (Officers)	12,571
Gratuities (Married Officers)	19,318

I take it that those figures are all in excess of the retired pay given under sub-head J, namely, £128,000. If we add the extra cost that I have mentioned that will bring the total with regard to retired pay of officer personnel over £180,000. That is a not inconsiderable sum and it is no harm to have this particular matter brought to the notice of the public. The position might not be so bad if the actual amount were static. Nobody suggest that men who have given loyal and efficient service should not be recompensed. It is an accepted fact in the Civil Service and in local authority employment that servants, when they retire, should get a reasonable pension. When, however, we find pension figures beginning to creep up and the amount involved increasing year by year, particularly since the Minister took office, it is time to have a future look at the problem of expenditure on both Army pensions and the Defence Forces themselves.

The Minister in his usual fashion, and with his usual ability for misrepresentation, will no doubt seek to suggest that I do not want to see any pensions whatever paid to either officers or men. To save myself from that type of misrepresentation, at which the Minister is so expert, I must put it on the records of this House that I have no objection in the world to any State servent being properly recompensed for his services, but I suggest to the Minister that his actions in recent months in connection with the Defence Forces are responsible for the fact that not alone have we an increase in the main Estimate itself but we have a very substantial increase in pensions as well. These actions of the Minister may result in increasing taxation. Can anybody suggest that there has been an increase in efficiency in the Army as a result of the Minister's actions? The fact is we have a reduction in numbers in certain categories, especially in the lower ranks. But, despite that reduction, there has been no increase in pay.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is reverting to the debate on defence. We have just finished that Estimate.

Mr. McQuillan

When we come to the retired pay of officer personnel we find there is a substantial increase and the reason for that increase is because the Minister got rid of certain members of the Defence Forces for whom he had little love and very little regard for their services. It will be suggested to me that the Minister retired these officers for the sole purpose of allowing the junior officers to gain promotion. The Minister will not get away with that.

If that were the case it would be essential each years from this on to start improving immediately the top echelon if he is to leave room for promotion for all the deserving officers in the Army. If that were the case, we could expect each year a substantial increase in the pension allowance scheme. I do not think at a time like this, when every section of the community is asked to tighten its belt, when the Minister for Finance states that money is not available—even for what can be described as most desirable objectives—that we can afford to retire men who were physically fit and not be in a position to satisfy the rightful ambitions of a large section of the junior serving officer personnel. It would be far better to leave this question of promotion within the Army on its normal basis in peace time so that when a promotion takes place, it would take place automatically over a period of years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is arguing the question of promotion within the Army. He could have raised that point on the Estimate just concluded.

Mr. McQuillan

It may appear that what I am saying would be more appropriate to the Estimate dealing with defence, but I should like to bring it within the rules of procedure by pointing out that the Estimate for retirement gratuities and retired pay would not be as large as it is and there would be no substantial increase on it, if the Minister allowed the ordinary channels of promotion to operate within the Army.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An occasional reference to the word "pension" does not make the remarks of the Deputy relevant.

Mr. McQuillan

At any rate I think I have made my point clear. I hope that the Minister will ensure in future that expenditure under this particular heading of retired pay and allowances and gratuities is kept down. One way of keeping it down from now is by making no sudden changes within the personnel of the Army itself in regard to the promotional system.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

The points raised were not very many. In the first instance, I propose to deal with those concerning special allowances. Allegations were made that there are serious delays in dealing with special allowances. I do not find that is so. On occasions the consideration of applications is long drawn out but generally speaking I find that on any occasion on which there is a long period of delay the reason is that adverse reports have been received. It is in an attempt to resolve the doubt thereby created that the delay takes place.

A number of Deputies objected to the reinvestigation in these cases. As Deputy MacEoin pointed out, it was found that a number of people had been awarded medals without being entitled to them in accordance with the law. It was found necessary then to reinvestigate these cases. I do not think that any officer asked to reverify should feel insulted about that. A number of cases of genuine mistaken indentify have been brought to light. There are cases of people with the same or very similar names in the one area. After the passing of such a long number of years people can often be mistaken in regard to the identification of an applicant. A certain amount of public money may be saved by reinvestigation. It is the duty of the Minister for Defence to see that public money is given only to those people entitled to it in accordance with the law.

In regard to the question of the relaxation of the means test, I should like to relax it, but these special allowances are at the moment costing the country a considerable amount; £387,400 is the estimate for the coming year. That aspect of it has to be considered. I am investigating the possibility of relaxing the means test but I do not know whether I shall be able to do it or not. I should like to do it.

Do rinne an Teachta Mac Cárthaigh tagairt don iarracht atá á déanamh chun na hiarrataisí le pinsin seirbhís mileata a glanadh suas. Do cheap sé gur cheart an bord do choimeád ar súil níos fuide ná mar atá ar aigne anseo. Sé mo thuairim gur fearr na hiarrataisí go léir a chríochnú san sin. Ní féidir cásanna atá críochnaithe d'oscailt gan Bille nua a thúirt isteach agus níl sé sin ar aigne agam fé láthair.

That is all that has to be said in regard to special allowance. It is all right for Deputy O'Donnell to suggest that I can out red tape. They are safegurds for the expenditure of this public money. The question was raised of the cost of the supplementary retired pay being granted to certain Army officers. That was agreed by both Houses of the Oireachtas only last year and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the reasons for it.

It was not to make opportunities for promotion that I decided to withdraw the grant of two years' extension. It was restore the opportunities of promotion that were there for the younger officers prior to the granting of that extension. I make it quite clear that I had no objection to those people being rewarded for the services they rendered. What I objected to was that they should be recouped at the expense of their fellow officers. It has cost some money to clear that up; but I think it was worth while for the beneficial effect it had on the morale of the Army.

Vote put and agreed to.