Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 May 1959

Vol. 175 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—Army Pensions.

Aire Cosanta (Caoimhín Ó Beoláin)

Tairgim:—

"Go ndeonfar suim nach mó ná £1,118,550 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1960, chun Pinsean Créachta agus Michumais, Pinsean Breise agus Pinsean Fear Pósta, Liúntas agus Aiscí (Uimh. 26 de 1923, Uimh. 12 de 1927, Uimh. 24 de 1932, Uimh. 15 de 1937, Uimh. 2 de 1941, Uimh. 14 de 1943, Uimh. 3 de 1946, agus Uimh. 19 agus 28 de 1949, Uimh. 23 de 1953 agus Uimh. 19 de 1957); Pinsean, Líúntas agus Aisci Seirbhíse Míleata (Uimh. 48 de 1924, Uimh. 26 de 1932, Uimh. 43 de 1934, Uimh. 33 de 1938, Uimh. 5 de 1944, Uimh. 11 agus 34 de 1945, Uimh. 7 agus 29 de 1949, Uimh. 5 de 1953 agus Uimh. 12 de 1957); Pinsean, Liúntas agus Aisci (Uimh. 37 de 1936; Uimh. 9 de 1948; Uimh. 30 de 1950; Uimh. 27 de 1952, Uimh. 4 de 1953 agus Uimh. 17 de 1957); Iocaiochtaí i leith Cúitimh do Chomhaltai den Fhórsa Cosanta Aitiúil (Uimh. 19 de 1946, agus Uimh. 15 de 1949); agus chun Ranníoc agus Costas iolartha ina dtaobh sin, etc.

Milliún, sé chéad, seachtó is seacht míle, cúig chéad is caoga punt méid iomlán an Mheastacháin seo; sé sin, £22,600 de bhreis ar an méid a vótáladh le haghaidh na bliana air-geadais 1958-59. Tá méaduithe de £72,384 ar Fho-Mhirchinn áirithe, agus i bhFo-Mhírchinn eile tá laghduithe a dhéanann £49,784. Ag seo na nithe is cúis leis an méaduithe is mó—Fo-Mhírcheann D—Liúntais agus Aiscí do Chleithiúnaithe, etc.— £3,500; Fo-Mhírcheann H—Scéimeanna Óglaigh na hÉireann (Pinsin)— £45,000 agus Fo-Mhírcheann O— Liúntais Speisialta—£22,600. Seo iad na laghduithe is mó—Fo-Mhírcheann C—Pinsin agus Aiscí Créachta is Míchumais—£10,500 agus Fo-Mhírcheann G—Pinsin Sheirbhíse Míleata—£31,000. Fairis sin, ní gá i mbliana soláthar a dhéanamh don Réiteoir agus don Choiste Comhairlitheach, rud a chosnaigh £7,834 anuraidh.

Maidir leis an soláthar laghdaithe i gcomhair pinsean créachta agus míchumais agus pinsean seirbhíse míleatha, is comhartha é, dá mhéid ár n-aiféala ina thaobh, go bhfuil na daoine lena mbaineann siad-san ag imeacht uainn ó bhliain go chéile.

Is é is mó is cúis leis an soláthar méadaithe i leith liúntais agus aiscí do chleithiúnaithe ná dámhachtana lena bhfuil coinne agus a bheidh le déanamh má achtaítear reachtaíocht atá ar intinn agam a thabhairt isteach go luath.

Ós rud é gurb iad na hoifigigh, na hoifigigh neamh-choimisiúnta agus na fir sa bhreis a bheidh á scor agus á n-urscaoileadh ar pinsean faoi ndear é, ní féidir an soláthar méadaithe i gcomhair íocaíochtaí faoi Scéimeanna Óglaigh na hÉireann (Pinsin) a sheachaint. Is ionann cás don soláthar méadaithe le haghaidh liúntas speisialta mar is ag dul i líonmhaireacht do na daoine atá ag fáil na liúntas sin.

This Estimate, at £1,677,550, stands £22,600 higher than the amount voted for the financial year 1958/59. Increases in a number of the Subheads amount to £72,384, while in others there are decreases which account for £49,784. The principal increases are in Subhead D—Allowances and Gratuities to Dependants, etc.—£3,500; Subhead H—Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes—£45,000 and Subhead O— Special Allowances—£22,600. The main decreases are in Subhead C— Wound and Disability Pensions and Gratuities—£10,500 and Subhead G— Military Service Pensions—£31,000. In addition, provision for the Referee and Advisory Committee, which last year amounted to £7,834, does not recur this year.

The decrease in the provisions for wound and disability pensions and military service pensions is a manifestation, however much we may regret it, of the inevitable action of time. This was not so apparent in previous years in the case of military service pensions, because a number of new pensions was being awarded all the time, and this counterbalanced to some extent the downward trend as a result of deaths. The Referee and Advisory Committee completed, on the 30th September last, the work which was commenced in 1950 pursuant to the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Act, 1949. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep regret that the Referee, Judge Sheehy, died within a short time after his task had ended.

The increased provision in respect of allowances and gratuities for dependants arises mainly from anticipated awards which will fall to be made if legislation which I propose to introduce soon is enacted. As Deputies are already aware, this legislation will, inter alia, provide for an extension of the date of application for allowances under Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1953, and it will also contain provision for certain other types of benefit.

Resulting as it does from further retirements and discharges on pension of officers, non-commissioned officers and men, the increase in the provision for payments under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes is unavoidable. There is at present awaiting the approval of this House an amending Scheme—recently approved by the Seanad—which has been made to adjust retired pay, pensions and gratuities in relation to the pay increases which were granted as from April, 1958. The adjustment is to be retrospective so as to include persons who have retired or have been discharged since the beginning of April, 1958, and who were in receipt of the increased rates of pay before retirement or discharge.

The increase for special allowances is likewise the result of the increasing numbers in receipt of such allowances. On the 30th April last, 5,833 special allowances were being paid as compared with 5,544 a year previously. That increase was a nett one; actually 795 allowances were awarded during the twelve months while 506 ceased because of death or other causes. The proposed Amending Bill which I have mentioned already will include a provision to remove the closing date of application for medals, the award of which would render the recipients eligible to apply for special allowances. While it may seem surprising that people should still at this stage be applying for the 1917-1921 Medal, more than 500 applications have been received since the closing date at present laid down—the 18th July, 1958. It can only be assumed that these persons deferred application until they regarded themselves as likely to qualify, on age or other grounds, for special allowances.

In response to requests made to me, I have considered the question of easing further the means test for special allowances. While it has not been possible for me to go as far as some would like, both because of other pressing demands on public funds and because, having regard to the nature and purpose of special allowances, the means test must have some significance, I have nevertheless been able to effect further easements as regards the assessment of the value of free lodging and the earnings of children, and also with regard to free lodging and maintenance reserved under deeds of transfer where the provision of these amenities constitutes a hardship. As well, I propose in the Amending Bill to remove the distinction, for the purposes of the appropriate annual sum, between persons married before the 1st October, 1942, and those married on or after that date. The distinction in question operates to the disadvantage of the latter class.

The Estimate does not, of course, contain specific financial provision in respect of the proposed increases in pensions recently announced in the Budget. To such extent as may prove necessary, these will be covered by a supplementary estimate later in the financial year.

I think that that is all I need say in introducing the Estimate. If I can give any further information which will be of assistance, I shall be glad to do so when replying to the debate.

General MacEoin

This is a vote which we must pass because failure to do so would cause considerable hardship and annoyance to many people. I note the Minister says the great controller, Time, is having its effect upon the payments which are falling due each year. That is inevitable but it is to be regretted that so many are passing away. However, the Minister must expect a fairly large number of us to pass away in the immediate future if one bases the figure on the amount of money by which he has reduced the Estimate for military service pensions, disability and other pensions. I am glad he has announced an amendment to the Act to extend the time by which people can become qualified to receive medals. This has been a very difficult matter.

As far back as 1956, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, I said that the Government had given approval to an amendment of the Act to enable that to take place. There are many people ever since who have been debarred. The fact that 500 have applied since the closing date shows that there are still a large number who claim to be entitled to pensions. That is due solely to the reason that when persons applied for a certificate of service, they thought, and they were never fully disabused of the thought, the application also included the application for the medal.

I found that, in law, the Department did not take that view. I have contended all the time that the medal was a lesser application than the certificate of service and, therefore, on the old principle that the major always includes the lesser, the medal should automatically be awarded on the application for a certificate. I think the easiest way out of it would be for the Minister to declare, in whatever legislation he is bringing in, that an application for a service certificate would be sufficient and would be regarded as an application for the medal. I think it would rectify the matter and eliminate hardships.

There will be people, then, who will receive the medals later but who, if they had had them before that, would be entitled to receive their special allowances. I have very little to say with regard to the Minister's proposals. They are inevitable. But when he says that 506 special allowances ceased because of death or other causes, I should like him to give us some indication of what the other causes were and are.

I am aware that there were many causes that led to the disqualification of people who had medals and special allowances. I should like the Minister to give us an indication of how that matter is now proceeding. I want him, further, to say why the people who are called on to certify the service of applicants are often people who have no possible chance of knowing whether or not they were members. If they are unable to say positively that the person was a member, then it is taken almost as a disqualification.

I know of several instances in which a brigade officer is regarded as a certifying officer but he resides miles away from the applicant and could not possibly say whether or not he was an active member in the period 1st April, 1921, to 11th July, 1921. I suggest to the Minister and to his Department, because of the number of deaths and other causes, that, where company officers are prepared to make a sworn affidavit or a declaration that the applicant was a member of a company within the qualifying dates, it should be accepted. Furthermore, if one or two officers or section commanders were prepared to give that certificate, I do not see why the Minister or the Department should not accept that certification. Failure to do so has created very great hardship.

I regret to say the position has created a situation in which there are allegations of partisanship. No matter what political views a person may hold, that is no reason why he should not get what he is justly entitled to, in law. It has been brought to my notice that if a person has certain views, there is a danger that he will not get certification if the officers hold a different view. Such a thing should not happen.

I urge on the Minister that where the officers are not immediately available, the certification of a company captain, a first or second lieutenant or, alternatively, certification by a person who himself has a fairly substantial military service pension, should be sufficient evidence to warrant the issue of the medal. It is very disconcerting and a very great hardship to people who rendered service to find themselves with a medal and a special allowance but, because some anonymous scribe sits down and writes a letter, that special allowance is withdrawn or suspended and a considerable time elapses before a decision is come to and, when a decision has been reached, the applicant has no indication of who complained or what evidence was given against him.

Like the Social Welfare claims, where that happens, where a special allowance or a medal is withdrawn or, to use the official phrase, not duly awarded, the evidence on which that decision is based should be sent to the applicant who will then know what he has to meet. Unfortunately, he is left in the dark. He is not told that the officers failed to certify him. He is not told the names of the officers who were asked to certify him. He is told in a very vague way that the matter is under investigation.

I had a scheme in mind under which the whole question of military service pensions and the award of medals would be reviewed and put on a firm basis. I suggest that, even at this late stage, the Minister should take that up. Time is passing rapidly and the Great Reaper, the Almighty, is calling on more and more. In another ten to 15 years, this Estimate will be very small and I feel that generous treatment should be meted out to those people who are in need.

I am glad to learn that the Minister has been able to get the Department of Finance to concur in the proposal to amend the means test because there were some extraordinary assessments. Unlike the old age pension assessments, these assessments varied from area to area. I think there should be uniformity. Then there would be no difficulty in establishing the fact that justice was done to all, that there was no partiality, that the Act was administered in a very clear and impartial manner, that everybody was dealt with in a similar way and no hardship imposed, but, on the contrary, where there was to be a privilege and a benefit that that would be ensured.

There are still a very large number of members of the Old I.R.A. who had pre-Truce service and who did not take part on either side in the Civil War, and there are some people who had pre-Truce service and also service in the Civil War, who are still dissatisfied. They are dissatisfied for the simple reason that they got it into their heads that there was political action in every phase of the matter and that there was partisanship, that you had to belong to some Party and then whatever Government were in office, you were all right. Of course, that was not so, but because the applicants never knew what they had to prove, what witnesses or what evidence were necessary, they claimed that there was this disparity in the matter of awards and certificates. They got the impression that the applicant who was able to make a good case, even if it were not 100 per cent. accurate, but was substancially true, was well away, but that another person who said: "Well, I did everything I was ordered to do", or something like that, and was a bit hesitant about going into his service, got the order of the boot and was eliminated.

I saw that happen. I saw the Referee and the Board of Assessors dealing with a case in which a person came in and was sworn and was then asked when he joined the Volunteers. Then he was asked what service he rendered in the year 1917—1918 and he replied: "Everybody knows what I did," and the Referee wrote "everything" for that year. He put the same question for the next year and for each year up to the end of the Truce. I saw the Referee putting down the word "everything" for each of those years and when it was all added up it meant—nothing. I asked if I might intervene and I said to the applicant: "Did you not take part in the attack on such a barracks?" The applicant replied: "Of course I did" and then the referee remarked that it was a wonder that the applicant had not told us of that fact. Were it not for the fact that I was in a position to examine the witness myself and to give him a hand it would have meant that when all the "everythings" were added up, they would have totted up to nothing.

On the other hand, if the applicant knew what he had to establish and what constituted service, he could bring in a legal officer, or a solicitor to assist him. It is an extraordinary situation that if the applicant had a motor-car accident in which a car hit a calf worth, at that time, £2 or £3, or perhaps less, and if he were going to court about it, he would have employed a solicitor to prove what happened, but here was a case where a military service pension was at issue for the rest of a man's life and he had no knowledge of how to set about proving his case. That may all be too late but it was something which, when I was Minister, I decided would be rectified as far as possible. I should like the Minister to examine that matter and when he is amending the Act, as he says he proposes to amend it in certain respects, that he will see how far he can get these matters rectified.

I know, as his predecessor, that the Government were favourable that when the Referee would wind up, there would be a new set of circumstances established. I want to join with the Minister in expressing regret at the death of the last Referee. He was a very kind and courteous man but he was restricted in the discharge of his duties by the terms of the legislation which he had to operate. He wrote some very fine memoranda upon what he thought were the flaws in the present Act. It is a pity the Minister and the Government have decided to wind up the Act. Of course, this is the second time they have done so, but I am not going into that because I feel the Minister is favourably disposed towards those who have claims which have yet to be met and I do not want to jeopardise them by saying anything which might be likely to prevent them achieving success in their efforts.

Mr. Sherwin

Last year, I referred to certain members of the Old I.R.A. who, in my opinion, did not receive justice. Now that there is a saving as a result of deaths and, as has been stated already, we will continue to have that saving as time goes on, the Minister might consider certain classes not previously considered. I wish to refer to those who took part in the Civil War. I am not going into the question of who was right or who was wrong, or any other aspect, but I want to deal with persons who served during the Tan War but who, because they could not prove some armed activity, were denied a pension.

The impression given by some people is that only a few thousand men fought and one would imagine that the other people "funked" it. They were just as anxious to fight as the others but in guerilla warfare you cannot go out and ask to fight. Only a small number can fight and the rest are reserves who are just as anxious to fight as the others. In fact, a large number would be a danger. During the attack on the Custom House a large number took part and many were captured. Throughout the Tan war there were a chosen few, usually the same few. But all the time the reserves were standing to. They were anxious to go out but were not given the opportunity. I hold that they served just as well. They had given up their time. If captured they would likely have been murdered and certainly would have been imprisoned.

No credit was given to those who could prove they served, especially during the critical period. I understand that those who could prove armed activity during the Tan War got service also for the Civil War. That is strange. Why deny the men who served during the Tan War, but did not get the opportunity of carrying out a job, and who also took part in the Civil War? Why is it right in one case and wrong in another? In the Civil War, unfortunately, we had brother fighting brother, but both sides acted in good faith. Those on one side at least had their liberty, their wages or their rank in the Army—all the privileges of victory—while those on the other side lost their jobs and their health. Many of them never regained what they lost and had to go to England or America. Many of them had to start from the bottom again. But, no matter what they lost, they got no pension. If the Minister thought they had no right to a pension because they took part in the Civil War on the anti-Treaty side, at least he could have considered some form of compensation for loss or imprisonment. But to give certain classes pensions for the Civil War just because they had the privilege of taking part in the Tan War and to deny consideration of those who took part in the Civil War seems a very strange contradiction to me.

I want to point out to the Minister again that there are a considerable number of people who served faithfully throughout the Tan War but who may not have thrown a bomb or fired a shot because they did not get an opportunity. They suffered very much and should get some consideration, at least in the matter of compensation for monetary loss or imprisonment. I mentioned this matter last year and I mention it again now. I do so on behalf of all those with whom I was associated. I took part in the Civil War on the anti-Treaty side and I know how those men suffered.

There is another matter I mentioned last year. A Disability Act was passed in 1932. There was another Act in 1938 which provided for the case in which a man's health was aggravated as a result of service. Many people did not avail of this Act because there was a time limit for making applications. In the original 1932 Act there was no time limit, or at least the Minister for Defence had power to reopen a case at any time when new evidence was produced. But there was no such provision in the 1938 Act. There were a number of people in America and England not aware of the Act and when eventually it occurred to them they could come in under the Act, they found that unless they applied within a certain period they could not be considered. Therefore there are certain people entitled to a disability pension because of aggravation, but because no power is given to the Minister to reopen their cases they are still in need. I know several such cases.

I know some people got medals who were not entitled to them. I was a member of the Fianna. I remember only too well that before things got hot there were 70 or 80 in the company always, but when things got very hot there were only 20. For at least eight or nine months before the Truce there were never more than 20. I know that a number of those who were active before things got hot came back afterwards and got medals. I assume that has happened in many cases—I shall not say a big number of cases. When years pass it is simple for a fellow to say "Remember me?" The point is: can you remember him being active during the critical period? Very few men can remember after years in what particular months a man was active or not. I know it is difficult, but at least the Minister should make sure that whenever there is a claim for a special allowance the whole question will be re-examined. I should not like to think of some fellow who "funked" it when things got hot coming back later getting a medal and, perhaps, a special pension.

During the year several questions were asked about the Casement Brigade. I feel that some of those men are entitled to some recognition. The question is this: did any of them suffer for their action? It appears that as a result of Casement's activities certain people agreed, to form a brigade in Germany. I understand that many of them suffered. They threw no bombs or took part in no action of that kind, but nevertheless the propaganda value was there. They did as much as many of those who have medals. But, as I say, the question is: did they suffer as a result of joining this brigade? Surely the Minister could easily find out from the British pensions people if these men lost their pensions or gratuities? If any of them did suffer as a result of their actions, then they should get some credit in the form of a medal at least. Any man who made any sacrifice is at least entitled to a medal.

On the question of medals, I enquired from the Department of Defence if there are any replacements. I have a medal but I broke the hasp a couple of years ago and could get no replacement. Surely there should be some replacement? I understand you can buy ribbons in a few places but not a hasp. Surely a person should at least be able to purchase a hasp? I have a broken hasp and when I go out I have to get a safety pin——

Mr. K. Boland

The Deputy can get a replacement.

Mr. Sherwin

I accept that if the Minister says so. I asked and I was told that they could not be replaced. I asked three years ago.

General MacEoin

There is 5/- to pay.

Mr. K. Boland

You have to pay 5/-.

Mr. Sherwin

We do not mind that so long as they are obtainable. I would ask the Minister again to consider the cases of those who did not receive any compensation for their service in the light of the fact that now the account is small and will continue to reduce and perhaps he can afford to consider the question.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is a minor matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. It was decided in the Budget this year to award an increase in old age pensions—a delayed action increase—which will become operative later this year. In the assessment of means for a special allowance, the recipient's old age pension is not taken into account but that of his spouse is. On a previous occasion when increases were granted in old age pensions, in a number of instances it had the effect of reducing the husband's personal allowance by a much greater amount than the increase in the old age pension granted to his wife as a cushion against the impact of the cost of living. This is an administrative matter that can be corrected. As the increase is intended to help people to meet the cost of living, no Minister would wish that existing regulations would operate to reduce the total income of the household. I should like the Minister to examine this matter before the increase in old age pensions comes into operation with a view to guarding against the injustice that resulted on former occasions in similar circumstances.

Mr. T. Lynch

I think this is a sordid business, a business of bartering service to Dark Rosaleen for money. I think it is a sordid business because, when I first entered Dáil Éireann, I was approached by members of the Irish Volunteers, men who could say that everybody knew their record. I had not very much to do with what is called "the movement" but I had seen these men arrested several times; I had known what their services were. They were on the run. They were recaptured. They went to various prisons. They were on hunger strike. One of them went what we call anti-Free State or Irregular during the Civil War. They came to me together and asked me did I know who were the people in my constituency who had military service pensions. I said that I had no idea. They asked me to find out for them.

I wrote to the Department of Defence and was told that such information was not made readily available. I used my Parliamentary privilege and put down a question, which was answered in a tabular form. A member of the House said that it was a shame to ask such questions. I was rather startled at that. "Why should such a question be asked?" he said. I said that it could not be considered a shameful thing to have one's name on such a list, that the list should be a roll of honour. When I showed the list to the people who had asked me to get the information, and who will give me permission any day I like to use their names, whose names are household words, they were appalled at many of the names that were on the list.

The two people who approached me are not in receipt of pensions. They are not disappointed men; they never applied for pensions. If they did apply, they are the type of people who would be awarded the maximum pension.

I do not know what the law is in relation to these pensions but I do know that medals were given for service, or alleged military service, or alleged service to the State and in many cases the medals had to be returned, which shows that the machinery by which the medals were awarded was liable to error. It would be of service to the State and a service to those who gave great service to the State if all pensions were reviewed because the information that I have and that I can stand over is that there were many men who got military service pensions who, in the opinion of people who had great service, who are not disappointed men, who did not apply for pensions, should never have applied for them.

Deputy Sherwin suggested that a man should have suffered before he would get a pension. I do not think that is a necessary requirement. Pensions have been awarded for service. I do not think it is fair to say, and it is constantly being said, that people who served the country were all thrown on the dust heap. It was said in the House this evening that the members of the Casement Brigade were not properly treated. I know some of the members of the Casement Brigade. When they arrived back in Ireland they were provided with very good jobs under the State and I do not think it is fair to say that the State abandoned all these people. I have known hundreds of people who gave military service to the State and the State gave them the recognition that they deserved.

We should get away from the constant carping at the Department of Defence, alleging that it abandoned these men, that it gave them nothing. The majority of those who served the State well have been well treated by the State and have been well treated by all Governments. There are people who may not have been able to present their cases for a military service pension in the proper way. There are people who are jealous because a neighbour got a pension and who consider that their services were better but whose services were not better.

There are the people to whom we should give the greatest credit, those who joined the Volunteers in the early days, who served in the Black and Tan War and in the Civil War, on the side of their choice. I am not making any issue about that. When everything was over they went back to their counters, their ploughs, their jobs. Some of them applied for medals and got them. Others did not, because they take pride in the fact that to-day they can still call themselves Irish Volunteers.

General MacEoin

Before the Minister concludes, may I ask, in relation to Part II of the Act of 1953, how many cases are still outstanding, how many are to be investigated by him and how many are with the Minister for Finance, still in the pigeon hole?

Mr. K. Boland

I have not the numbers, but there are very few. There were a number of points raised by Deputy MacEoin. Adverting to the part of my speech where I mentioned that it was proposed to remove the time limit on applications for medals which, if granted, would qualify people for special allowances provided that they satisfied the other conditions, Deputy MacEoin mentioned that Government approval was given in 1956 to the extending of the date. That date was, in fact, extended up to 18th July, 1958, and the 500 applications which he mentioned were since that date. If you like, it is an admission of defeat that we are now proposing to remove the date altogether. A great deal of publicity was given at the time of the Army Pensions Act, 1957, to the fact that this was the last date for applying for these medals, but in spite of all the publicity given—I am sure all Deputies spread the news as well as they could in their areas—we still had these 500 applications since 18th July, 1958. In view of that, we have come to the ultimate decision to remove the time limit.

Deputy MacEoin also asked for some indication as to what the other causes were, apart from death, for the reduction in the numbers of special allowances. The main cause is on the grounds of improved means. There were very few cases where the entitlement to a medal was questioned in the case of a person who is actually in receipt of a special allowance. There were a number some time ago, but in late years there are very few cases of that type occurring and very few cases where the special allowance has been withdrawn because the entitlement to the medal was in question and it was found not to be duly awarded.

With regard to the question of verification of service for these medals, it is to company officers we go, in the first instance. It has been the experience that going to company officers alone in a number of cases is not sufficient. We sometimes get contradictory evidence and it is obvious in a number of cases we have to go further. We do not go to brigade officers. It is to battalion officers we go. That is simply because it has been found necessary in order to establish the fact that a person is entitled to a medal. You have to go somewhere.

General MacEoin

If he says he does not know, then the unfortunate person is done.

Mr. K. Boland

You are back trying to make up your mind. It is obviously a very difficult thing——

General MacEoin

I agree.

Mr. K. Boland

——when you have contradictory evidence. If there are cases of local animosities, the battalion officer is likely to be unaffected by them. There is the possibility that we may get an opinion that we can accept from him but it is a difficult thing all right. I agree that the company officer should be the person who would know.

General MacEoin

Swear them. Put them on oath.

Mr. K. Boland

In any case, it is a difficult thing to do. The only thing you can do is to approach all the officers who, it is felt, might be in a position to verify. Of course, there is also the question of the company rolls. Most of the cases turned down were cases of people who were not on the company roll. I think it would be agreed that these rolls were in most cases very carefully prepared. The mere fact of a person not being on the company roll is in itself sufficient to cause doubt.

General MacEoin

It is some evidence. It is not complete.

Mr. K. Boland

It is not conclusive evidence, I agree, and is not used as conclusive evidence, but it could be the deciding factor in the case of contradictory evidence. With regard to the question which Deputy MacEoin raised of applicants for military service pensions who, in his opinion, were unable to present their cases properly, both on the Board of Assessors and on the Referee's Advisory Committee, there were always two high-ranking officers of the old I.R.A. who were put there because they were people who knew the circumstances which obtained during that period and who, it was assumed—and, I think, rightly assumed—would help people to make their cases properly.

I think that was how the system operated. These old I.R.A. officers knew the type of activity that was involved and knew the information the applicant should give and gave him every possible help. Of course, they saw to it that people got fair treatment. In addition, any applicant was entitled to be legally represented there. They were invited to bring any witnesses they could. I do not see what more could be done. It may be that there were some people who did not present their cases properly but the whole question was reopened a number of times. They certainly got sufficient opportunity. It is hard to see, even if they were again reopened, that they would make any better fist of their cases. They got every opportunity and if they did not succeed before, there is no reason to think they would present their cases any better now.

The question raised by Deputy Sherwin with regard to awarding pensions for civil war service only would, of course, be an entirely new principle and it has never been considered that that should be done. It has always been part of the qualification that there should be pre-Truce service also. He also suggested that when a medal holder applies for a special allowance, the award of the medal should be re-examined. That is always done. When there is an application for a special allowance, it has to be established that the medal was duly awarded. That investigation is what Deputy MacEoin was complaining about. It has to be done because it has been discovered, as Deputy Sherwin says, that some medals were awarded originally before there was a special allowance attaching to them which should not have been awarded because the persons concerned had not got the requisite service.

The question, raised by Deputy O'Sullivan, as to whether the recent increases announced for old age pensions would be taken into account in connection with the means of the spouse of a special allowance holder has not been decided yet.

There was another point raised, I think, by Deputy MacEoin in regard to cases where the entitlement to a medal is questioned. It was suggested that in those cases, I think, the special allowance is suspended while the entitlement is being investigated. That is not the position. That is not done at present. Even if we are reinvestigating entitlement to a medal, the special allowance continues to be paid until such time as it has been definitely established—to our satisfaction, anyway—that the medal is not duly awarded. I do not know whether that was always the case but it certainly is now. I think at one time payment was stopped, but that is not the position at present.

In regard to the other question Deputy Sherwin raised concerning these aggravation cases, I am afraid I am not familiar with these, but I shall have the matter looked into and find out if, in fact, those cases cannot be reopened.

Mr. Sherwin

The disability cases?

Mr. K. Boland

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.