Private Members' Business (Resumed). - Amendment of Military Pensions Legislation: Motion. – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Thursday, 24 Nov 1960

Private Members' Business (Resumed). - Amendment of Military Pensions Legislation: Motion.

Mr. Tierney

I move:

In view of the facts that a large number of persons at present in receipt of Military Service Pensions receive less than £1 per week, that the services of these people played no small part in the foundation of the State and that their numbers are now appreciably reduced by the effluxion of time, Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the past services of these people should be more generously recognised and calls upon the Government to introduce forthwith amending legislation to ensure a reasonable standard of living for them in their declining years.

Had I followed the usual procedure in seeking an increase for a certain section of the community, I would have tabled a number of Parliamentary Questions to find out the number of persons in receipt of military service pensions, the annual expenditure on such pensions, the percentage expenditure on each person and other such matters. The Minister, with the vast resources at his disposal, would then quite rightly attempt to produce rebutting figures and the debate would develop into a lesson in mathematics rather than a constructive effort to achieve improvement for the persons concerned. Accordingly, I do not propose to follow this line but rather to appeal to the Dáil sense of moral justice in regard to the men so shockingly treated by successive Governments since its foundation.

The meeting of the first Dáil took place on 22nd January, 1919. I may be incorrect, but I think that of the members of that assembly only three sit in Dáil Éireann today, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and Deputy Mulcahy. They must recollect that when the Democratic Programme was read out on that occasion and accepted with enthuasism by the members present, a guarantee was given that the aged and infirm of our community would no longer be regarded as a burden upon the State but rather as people entitled to the nation's gratitude and consideration. The men on whose behalf I speak have not grown aged and infirm in the ordinary way. But for their self-denial and self-sacrifice, this State would not be in existence today.

Yet, in spite of that undertaking given on that historic occasion, we find many of them living in conditions of abject poverty. As a result of the country's economic programme, it has been found desirable to impose a means test for those in receipt of social benefits, but that does not justify the imposition of such a test on men who suffered hunger, deprivation and imprisonment cheerfully in their youth in order that our children might grow up in a free Irish community. The attitude of the Civil Service is seen at its worst in its dealings with these men. Last year, the Minister announced certain increases in military and other service pensions and pointed out that they were justified on a cost of living basis. It later developed that if an unfortunate pensioner was in receipt of another pension, the latter was cut with the result that he got nothing at all. This was in spite of the Ministerial statement that the increases were justified on a cost of living basis alone.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

That did not happen.

Mr. Tierney

No matter how hard they try, those who are not directly involved or who are not personally aware of these great personal sacrifices cannot make a full contribution to the House on this matter. The present Minister, as well as many members of the House, were yet but infants at that time, if they were even born. I accordingly appeal to the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance who, by reason of their position and long service, must have great prestige in the Cabinet, to see that this appalling situation is at last set right.

It may be said that other efforts should be made to alleviate the situation of these men. That may be so, but I am in no way ashamed of the terms of this motion and there should be no necessity for me or any other member of the Dáil to speak on this motion here today. Accordingly, I leave it to the conscience of the Dáil to decide whether or not my motion should be implemented in full. I believe that this House, down through the years, has paid only lip service to the members of the old I.R.A. I believe the time has come when we should forget politics, good, bad or indifferent, and try to rectify the wrong done to that particular section of the community down through the years. I am sure the Minister is aware of this, but it is rather surprising that the members of the Old I.R.A. who did not apply for military service pensions until 1934 have lost 10 years pension rights just because, on principle, they would not apply under the 1924 Pensions Act.

Mr. K. Boland

They were not qualified under that Act.

Mr. Tierney

I am surprised at the Minister saying that those who did not apply until 1934 would not have qualified under the 1924 Act. Is he correct in that? Is that his intrepretation?

Mr. K. Boland

That is right.

Mr. Tierney

That will come as a shock to anyone who took the Republican side, as the vast majority of them did at that time, and who refused to apply under the 1924 Act.

General MacEoin

But the Minister could make provision for them to qualify.

Mr. K. Boland

They had to have service on one particular side post-Truce.

Mr. Tierney

Would that mean that men with service in 1916, 1918, 1920 and 1921 could not qualify under the 1924 Act?

Mr. K. Boland

No.

Mr. Tierney

That is very strange. I shall accept the Minister's word but, for the life of me, I cannot follow that line of argument. I do not intend to delay the House unduly as I know there are many Deputies anxious to give their views on this interesting and, I hope, important motion. I deliberately moved it as an individual so that members on all sides of the House could see it was not moved for a political motive. It stands solely in my name; I believe the House should forget Party politics in order to do good for those who made it possible for us to sit in Dáil Éireann today, and I hope the Minister will at least rectify the wrongs that have been done to those people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the motion being seconded?

Mr. Everett

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Carroll

In supporting Deputy Tierney, I should like to say that this generation has proved itself to be as loyal, self-sacrificing and national as any that went before. The tribute paid to its young members this week is more than proof of that. However, I should like it to be made known to the vast majority of our people, who may not be aware of this, that at least five-sixths of the recipients of military service pensions who had service in the Old I.R.A., the Citizen Army, Cumann na mBan or Fianna Éireann, after taking into consideration the six per cent. or five per cent. increase granted in 1953, are in receipt of an average sum of £16 14s. per annum.

Fianna Éireann was the first military organisation of the century in this country. It was a training unit, an organising source for the Volunteers, and of its members there are not more than 100 in receipt of pensions at present. When one thinks that in Dublin, with its Dublin Brigade, its brigade council, its various battalions and battalion councils, company officers and men, there are not more than 30 of these pensioners, one shudders to think what will happen when the records of the Military History Bureau are opened in 50 years' time and the public realises that only 30 Dublin members of that organisation had performed service in so far as pensions were concerned. It may be considered even at the moment that, unless one has a pension, one's services were negligible.

The Minister and the Government may say that to increase pensions at this time would cost some thousands of pounds but I wonder, even if it cost £1,000,000, would the public not feel satisfied they were liquidating what can only be termed a national debt to these men? On Sunday morning last the Minister and Deputy MacEoin attended the commemoration services for McKee, Clancy and Clune and they saw the remnants of the Old I.R.A., the Citizen Army, Cumann na mBan and Fianna Éireann who were present. They were in a better position to judge than I, because they were on the rostrum, but I doubt if more than 700 of those veterans were present. Many of them who did turn out taxed their physical capacities to the limit. Would anyone suggest that, if an insurance agent were present, he would feel happy to present any of those veterans with a policy for a further 20 years of life? Consequently, I appeal to the Minister and the House, even at this late stage, to consider whether there is need for amending legislation. According to what the Minister said, some of these people would not qualify under the 1934 Act and that suggests there is need for amending legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Might I point out to Deputy Carroll that the motion relates to those already in receipt of military service pensions and asks that amending legislation be introduced to ensure them a reasonable standard of living? The question of those who have not qualified for pensions cannot be relevantly argued on this motion.

Mr. Carroll

I accept that, Sir, but I am merely putting it forward as a basis to justify increases for those who are at present in receipt of pensions. I mention these factors so that there may be a justification for future national expenditure to compensate those who gave services that money could not buy.

Let us consider the position that existed 40 years ago. The average earnings were, let us say, £3 to £4 per week. A craftsman had something like 2/- an hour. One year's internment or one year's active service denied a person the opportunity of continuing his craft or profession. There were others who were continuing their education in college or elsewhere or who were serving their period of apprenticeship. Apart from anything else there was a disruption in their lives. As a result of the recent increases, a great many of these men receive only £10 per year.

Let us go back 30 years and break in between the 1924 and 1934 Acts. These persons have not been compensated for, literally, their loss of money. None of them went out with a mercenary viewpoint. Contrast the treatment meted out for military service across the water, or, indeed, anywhere in Europe or in the U.S.A. The sacrifices of those people could not be compared because they were paid for their service. They were paid soldiers. Therefore, in respect of the appeal for unanimity, I urge the Minister to do what he can. He may not be in as close contact with the problem as his very good parent. At the moment, there are recipients of military service pensions in this city and what they are getting would not buy the bread we were talking about earlier today.

I make this speech in no controversial spirit. I urge that the present Minister for Defence and the former Minister for Defence should strive to be as helpful as possible in this regard and that the right thing should be done by the people concerned. There is not a Deputy who does not support that plea. There is not a Deputy who does not feel utterly ashamed that, having been sent by the people as a messenger to this House, he has not been able to do more for that section of our community on whose behalf I am speaking now.

In another 20 years the people mentioned in the motion will have departed this life. Possibly that will happen in many cases much earlier. I trust that no matter how hard he may have to strive to achieve this very desirable objective, the Minister will ensure that no member will receive less than £1 per week which is £50 per annum and that that £50 per annum, or whatever the sum may be, will not be subject to income tax or any assessment of the means test. I trust the Minister will do away with those restrictions in this connection. Here is a suggestion, as a step forward in the right direction. Would the Minister consider some gratuity at this stage that would compensate those who have been affected by this Bill and other Bills sponsored by this Government and other Governments?

General MacEoin

I want to add my voice to that of the seconder of the motion in urging that the Minister should review this matter. The Minister stated, which is true, that a number of people qualified under the 1934 Act who did not qualify under the 1924 Act. When he or his predecessor was moving that Bill he could have made it retrospective to 1924 if he had so desired but he did not do so.

Notwithstanding anything we may say to the contrary, I feel Deputies are pushing an open door when they make appeals to the Minister in this matter. I believe he is anxious to meet our demands. The only way we can get him to do so is by passing this motion. This House is supreme. If this House passes the motion the Government must either implement it or refuse to carry out the decision of the House.

Appeals for fairer treatment for the Old I.R.A. have been made on many occasions and to all Governments here. On every occasion it was a question of the cost, and things were always done piecemeal. While this motion does not permit of any reference to it, beyond a passing remark, I suppose, there is dissatisfaction with the amount of the pensions and dissatisfaction with the whole system. However, that is a matter for another day.

I do not know the Minister's views or the Government's intentions regarding this motion. In my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues, the Minister should accept the motion and the Government should give effect to it. As has already been said, the numbers of these people are getting fewer every day and, from now on, funerals will be more prevalent. I only hope my own will be as far away as I can make it. I shall try to keep it back as long as possible but there is no doubt that it is coming.

Deputy Carroll said the people for whom we speak will all be gone in 20 years' time; he is a bit of an optimist. In 20 years' time we shall be museum pieces. Any Old I.R.A. man who can hold the fort for another 20 years will have everything showered on him and more power to him; I hope he will get it. The Government will do penance at a late stage but it will be no good to those who are suffering today. The Minister will tell us that the Government have, in effect, put this motion into operation because of the special allowances provisions of the Act and that, in that way, they are guarding against undue hardship on the members of the Old I.R.A. who are well down financially, to say the least of it.

I urge the Minister to accept the motion in principle and that, when he comes to implement it, he should do so in a most generous fashion, keeping in mind all the rights and responsibilities of the people who have suffered so much.

Captain Giles

I also should like to support the motion and ask the Minister to give it his favourable consideration. None of us wants to be talking about pensions since we know that there are people in the country in a very bad way. I felt humiliated when the Pensions Act came out in 1924 and these men were offered £6 per year. Miserable as it was, they were glad to get it because they needed it. In 1960, we should be in a position to do justice by the few surviving men. The motion asks that we give them at least £1 a week for the next few years. I was against all pensions, except pensions for disabled people, but since our Government saw fit to bring in pensions Acts, I think it is only right that the underdog should be given consideration. I do not worry about the officers, who came out of it very well, but the ordinary private came out of it badly. Many of them felt they were a drag on the community, although they did as much as or more than many of the officers who are drawing big pensions to-day. Many of them did heroic work which has never been known and never will be known.

The people are sick and tired of hearing about pensions for the old I.R.A. Thirty years ago, we should have ended all this squabbling. We all knew in our own localities those who were entitled to a pension, and we should have united at that time in order to do justice by them. We have a chance now to unite and give the few survivors the few shillings to which they are entitled. I remember 25 years ago seeing 1,000 survivors at the funeral of an old colleague, but to-day at such funerals the remaining survivors come hobbling along. They tell us they are to sick to take part in the procession, but nevertheless they come long distances to honour an old comrade. It would not break the State to be a little generous with these people in the last few years of their lives.

These people are silent sufferers. None of them asked me to speak for them, because they have given up hope long ago. However, when I heard an old colleague was bringing in this motion, I was stirred by it and felt it would not be right if I did not say a few words on behalf of these people. I would ask the Minister to realise what these men went through in the old days. They were grinned at; jeered at and laughed at. That all happened because we had a squabble between ourselves. Had that not happened, nobody would have dared open his mouth against those men. But many people did open their mouths, and opened them loud and wide. I would ask the Minister to be generous enough to say he will do something for them.

I attended three funerals out of the workhouse of old I.R.A. men. We had to put our hands in our pockets to pay for the coffins. I felt most humiliated and sad to think these men had to go into the workhouse. That should never have happened, but there are many such men in our workhouses today awaiting the last call. It is a sad state of affairs that this nation should allow even one of those men to suffer that humiliation. When they went out in the old days, they were not thinking of money or pensions. They went out to make a national sacrifice and their only glory was that they would die fighting, and this is the way the nation has treated those of them who have survived. I think that is scandalous.

In 1924, a man who had served seven or eight years was offered £6 a year for life. When we look back on that, we feel they should have flung it back into the faces of the first Government and into the faces of the second Government as well. It was a disgrace to offer them such a low pension. Some of these men took big risks at that time, out in the fields, perhaps, or behind the ditches preparing to attack a barracks, compared with the people who were content to sit comfortably at home. They suffered a lot and suffered in silence and all we ask of the Minister is to be reasonably generous and to give the few remaining men in the lower grades nothing less than £1 a week. It would be despicable to offer them anything less.

Like my colleagues, I appeal to the Minister as the son of an old I.R.A. man and as one who himself knows that many in this country today are gladdened when they think of what is happening and how, due to their efforts, Irishmen can sit here and discuss the affairs of the State freely and that we can, as a free nation, send our young men out to fight and perhaps die in the Congo for Ireland. Those are the things these men suffered for and the least we can do is to give them reasonable conditions for the few short years they have left.

No; I have been dealing with these cases myself day after day. Since——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy can deal with them at the moment. It is not in order.

Mr. Coogan

Where does the Minister come in?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I rose on a point of explanation and I have nothing further to say.

Mr. Briscoe

I think it would be fair to say that everybody in the House and, in fact, throughout the country, would welcome at any time any advance that can be made towards increasing old I.R.A. men's pensions. It is true that when one examines the history of this, one finds that nobody joined the movement in the old days for the purpose of getting anything out of it. Nobody ever thought of that, but as time went on, one had to admit that numbers of our young people neglected to provide for their own material welfare in the future because of the voluntary sacrifice they made in the cause of the country's struggle for independence.

Time went on and the realisation came that many of those who rendered exceptional service to the country and its people were finding themselves in the position where some help was necessary. As these people grew older and as the cost of living increased, their circumstances bore more heavily on them. If we just accepted that aspect of the problem, one would welcome the most generous treatment of the old I.R.A. members. It is also true to say that as year follows year, the number of pensioners decreases. Even if an increase is given from time to time, as there has been, it does not necessarily follow that there is an increased expenditure of State funds. Every day in the newspapers, we read of the demise of some of these old comrades of ours.

I am satisfied that the Government are quite alive and sympathetic to the situation. While in recent times small increases have been given, I do not think the Government have ever said: "This is to be the end of what we can do by way of assistance for this deserving element of our population." I believe that having regard to our resources and to whatever upsurge there may be in the economy of the country this matter will receive consideration again from time to time.

I do not mean to imply that the feelings I express apply only to me. There are very many members of this House who have had service in days gone by and who feel that this is a matter on which we can be united to do the best we can, particularly as we are now fast approaching the decade in which most of these good people will probably be passing on.

I do not oppose and I do not say I object to the motion. I am glad to see that it has been proposed with a view to having a discussion and so that, through whatever publicity it gets outside this House, the public will realise that the State has a considerable liability still towards those people. We are very alive to the tragedies that overtake members of our State forces in present activities. We are glad to see that steps will be taken and are being taken to make the necessary provision for the dependants of casualties.

Coming back again to the type of person covered by this motion, there can be no question that they are genuine people. In the operation of the Military Service Pensions Acts, there had to be very definite scrutiny, examination and confirmation of the service of an applicant for a pension. Therefore, it is important that we should re-examine the position of most of these people. I am not dealing with the arrangements for special allowances which are necessary from a different angle; I am referring purely to pensions.

I am not prepared to agree with the movers of the motion that there should be a maximum or a minimum. There should be flexibility and the question should be examined from time to time and the pensions brought into line with the circumstances of the vast majority of these State pensioners and the cost of living.

I do not think that people can grumble or would want to grumble. I remember that when the 1934 Act was introduced, a number of individuals who had very considerable active service did not want to apply for a pension because they felt that they had not joined up for the purpose of getting any recompense whatsoever. It was pointed out to these people that there were very many who were not in such favourable circumstances and to whom assistance of this kind was very helpful and very necessary and that it would be unfair to have them pointed out as a less fortunate element who, because of their circumstances, were forced to accept pensions. Therefore, all those who had service and who qualified applied so that there would be no difference or distinction created.

We are not unique in this country. If there is anything unique about us, it is that we have been less generous with people who served the country and helped it to secure its independence than any other nation in the world has been towards its military personnel.

I again recommend to the Minister that he might have regularly put to him the numbers who are enjoying these pensions, the rate at which these pensioners are ceasing to exist and payment is ceasing; that there might be a minimum amount of money fixed by the Department of Defence which could be paid by way of pensions from year to year; that there should not necessarily be a Finance sort of approach to this part of his Vote but that on the death of a pensioner, there should be an examination as to how the saving thus arising could be applied by way of added benefit to those who remain.

In spirit, I welcome the motion. I understand it; I appreciate it. While it may not be possible for the Minister to accept it in the form in which it is put, I am sure we shall hear from him that the matter will be reviewed by him from time to time in the hope that better pensions for the old-I.R.A. will be brought about in time.

Seán Mac Cárthaigh

Táim chun focal cúnta a rá ar son na sean óglaich nach bhfuil de phinsiún aca ach níos lua ná £1 amháin so tseachtain. Tá fhios agam go maith go bhfuil an cheist sin á scrúdú fé láthair ag an Aire, agus, dá bhrí sin, ní gá a lán a rá sa Tigh seo mar gheall uirthi mar tá fhios agam go maith go bhfuil an tAire fábhárach gach rud is feidir leis a dhéanamh ar a shon san. Go deimhin, níl ann anois ach duine annseo agus annsúd ach mar sin féin, ba cheart dúinn pé rud is féidir linn a dhéanamh ag an am seo chun breis a thabhairt dóibh.

I shall say only a few words because I know that this matter is very much in the mind of the Minister and is examined from time to time. I speak only for those who have very small pensions, perhaps a few shillings per week. Many of them in the days of their youth and vigour gave their services for the cause of their country and, consequently, if they got into the public services or other employment are retiring now at 65 with much smaller pensions than they otherwise would have had. In that way, the blow is falling on them now.

Consequently, we all would favour, if it can be done, their cases being given special consideration. In some cases, persons are retiring on smaller pensions than they would have had because their years of service to the nation in the Volunteers cannot be taken into account for superannuation purposes. Many of them lost opportunities of securing appointments of one kind or another or perhaps of getting into the professions. Those matters should now be taken into consideration in their declining years. Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 24 Nov 1960

Private Members' Business (Resumed). - Amendment of Military Pensions Legislation: Motion.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Nov 1960