Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 May 1962

Vol. 195 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vóta 48—Arm-Phinsin.

Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £1,243,660 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íochta an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1963, le haghaidh Pinsin Chréacht agus Mhíchumais, Pinsin Bhreise agus Pinsin Fear Pósta, Liúntais 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, Uimh. 19 agus 28 de 1949, Uimh. 23 de 1953, Uimh. 19 de 1957, Uimh. 15 de 1959 agus Uimh. 2 agus 39 de 1960, agus Uimh. 6 de 1961); Pinsin Liúntais agus Aiscí 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, Uimh. 12 de 1957, agus Uimh. 3 agus 30 de 1960); Pinsin, Liúntais agus Aiscí (Uimh. 37 de 1936, Uimh. 9 de 1948, Uimh. 30 de 1950, Uimh. 27 de 1952, Uimh. 4 de 1953, Uimh. 17 de 1957 agus Uimh. 4, 5, 6, 31 agus 33 de 1960, agus Uimh. 5 de 1961, etc.); Iocaíochtaí i leith Cúitimh do Chomaltaí den Fhórsa Cosanta Áitiúil (Uimh. 19 de 1946 agus Uimh. 15 de 1949); agus le haghaidh Ranníocaí agus Costais iolartha ina dtaobh sin, etc.

When I reported progress last night, I had mentioned the fact that the Minister's predecessor withdrew the privilege to Old IRA officers serving in the Army of extending their service by two years. I was pointing out that the withdrawal of that right had a serious financial consequence for these officers and that they suffered a substantial loss. I have been reliably informed that the Minister's predecessor and the present Minister received a deputation from the officers who were thus compulsorily retired. They made the case that not only did they lose the social end of the two years' service and all that goes with it—there are certain amenities; there is no doubt about that—but they suffered a very substantial financial loss.

I am informed that the Minister received them favourably and sympathetically enough but that is as far as it has got. I do not intend to labour the point if the Minister, under the new schemes he proposes to bring in, intends to make good the loss suffered by these officers by way of increased pay, increased gratuity and the benefits they would have secured in the light of the increased cost of living had they served the two years in the Army. They suffered these losses in consequence of being pushed out, as it were.

It was, I admit, an extension, but it was given in recognition of their services and the services of people like them who helped to establish the State. I feel that the Minister in his introductory speech should have told us something about it. There are a great many omissions from that speech. It is imperative that in his reply he should try to cover all these matters which have arisen and say what the plans are for amending or altering the administration as it is at present carried out.

With regard to serving personnel, some extraordinary situations have arisen. The most difficult case I have encountered is where an officer, an N.C.O. or man who died within the past four or five years, but not in the Congo, and where it is fairly well established that the disability from which he died was contracted during the Emergency, there is no recognition because he died at a later date. In other words, the soldier or officer happened to live too long. If he had died a few years earlier, then his widow and children would qualify, but because he lived on a few years, it has been taken that the disability from which he died was not attributable to the Emergency, although, as I said, it was fairly well established that the disability was contracted during the Emergency and the fact that he was able to continue to serve is now taken as a bar to recognition of the widow and dependants.

I could cite many cases. I have in mind one case of an officer who left a widow and large family. Had he died during the Emergency from the disability he contracted, then the widow would have got a pension of a substantial nature, but today she gets the princely figure of £100 per annum and £27 roughly for each child. There are six or seven children. She is left in the position that she cannot work to get any additional emolument because the children are young and small. Consequently, she has to spend all her time with them and try as best she can to sustain them and herself on that miserable allowance. The case is made that this man did not die during the Emergency. The decision was based on the fact that it was not established the officer had died from disease attributable to service in the Defence Forces during the Emergency period. I think that is the toughest type of administrative action possible and I should be glad to know what the Minister intends doing concerning it.

There are so many difficulties arising under the Military Service Pensions code that I could talk here on it for hours. I am aware of the fact, which I assert without hesitation, that there is not a Deputy who could not contribute to the debate and show that these difficulties arise and that these hardships are being suffered by a very considerable number of people. We have the amazing situation that every officer, N.C.O. and man appears to become a great fellow when he dies and we seem to have the greatest pleasure in putting up memorials and gardens of remembrance, all for dead fellows.

I submit the best memorials a Minister or Government could raise in honour of any of these people would be a well provided for widow and dependan's. That would be a much more fitting memorial than anything in stone. The position is, as I pointed out yesterday, that the financial provision for the administration of the Military Service Pensions Act has been reduced by the very substantial sum of about £80,000 due to the fact that the Grim Reaper has been at work.

I take it the widows of military service pensioners would not have been provided for were there not disability in existence but where, as in some of the cases I have cited, doubt arises about these matters, if an error is to be committed I submit it should always be in favour of the applicant and not of the State because I am sure the State never had any intention of treating widows and dependants harshly. Accordingly, I feel the time has now been reached when the question of these pensions has become a matter of very serious import. It is true to say that 20, 25, or 30 years ago, the military service pensions were sneered at on the grounds that pensions were being provided for able-bodied persons. Perhaps there were grounds for that but today these people are reaching the stage when they are no longer able to work and in five or ten years' time the number of people who will be able to parade with the 1916 and 1921 medals will be very few.

I submit, therefore, that the time has come when, no matter what controversy there has been in the past, there is an obligation on the Government of the day, when the matter is brought to their notice, to rectify whatever wrongs may have been committed.

There are two other points I want to make. The first one is again an administrative problem. An IRA officer was granted a military service pension, granted his rank, and there was a report made to the Board and Referee at a later stage which led to a re-investigation of the claim. The Referee and Board withdrew that man's rank. It was asserted he had got his rank though he was not entitled to it but there was no question at any time that he was not entitled to the service he was awarded. However, the State took the unusual step of prosecuting this officer on the ground that he had got a rank to which he was not entitled.

That officer was tried here in the city of Dublin, the trial having been transferred from his local area in case the local jury might be swayed in his favour. It was brought to Dublin and on the evidence submitted for the prosecution, and partially on that submitted for the defence, the learned trial judge, who later became the Chief Justice, directed the jury to acquit him on all counts. Yet, arbitrarily, that officer, from that day to this, has been deprived of a pension in respect of his rank as well as a pension for his service, although he is entitled to his rank.

I submit that the Minister should take such steps as may be necessary to rectify a case such as that. Prejudice and ignorance were the cause of the statements that were made. There was prejudice from other quarters against this officer as well. I always felt he had a good case against the State in law, but since he had not a lot of the world's goods, he did not take his courage in his hands and prosecute his claim in the courts. I advised him as far as I could. He is not a political supporter of mine or of the Party to which I belong. For a while, he was a member of the Government Party. I am speaking on his behalf therefore simply because of the justice of his claim.

Finally, there is an old chestnut of mine which concerns the Disability Pensions Board. For a long number of years, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance have not paid an adequate salary or emoluments to the civilian medical member of the Pensions Board. At one time, the Minister for Finance promised to deal with the matter. It was argued by Defence that this person was a nominee of the Minister for Finance. I find that that is not correct and that he is a nominee of the Minister for Defence. He receives a very meagre amount. He is a very able doctor. When the military member of the Board gets promotion in the ordinary way, his salary goes up, but the civilian member remains put. Any increase he has got has been of a very minor nature. I suggest to the Minister that that should now be rectified.

The argument is made that he is not a permanent official. Without doubt, there is no obligation on the State to pay him a pension on retirement, but he has been working in this office for a great number of years—for the best part of 27 or 28 years. He is no longer young and I am sure he has responsibilities. Both the present Government and the inter-Party Government, and I as Minister, did not do justice in the case. If the Minister takes steps to rectify the matter, he will get all the support necessary from this side of the House.

Perhaps I have spoken longer than I intended. I was disappointed last night. It was a bit of a surprise to me to find that my motion could not be taken with the Estimate. I thought the fact that the Minister said he had no objection would enable us to take them together. However, the Chair ruled it would create precedents and so on and that other Departments were involved. I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps he and the Government should consider giving special time for a debate on the motion on the Order Paper.

Usually debates in this House start off very nicely, but after a short time, there are political quips from one side or the other and eventually we have recriminations across the floor and people trying to score political points. The one exception is the debate on Defence. The debate which finished last night and the one which followed it are examples of how debate should be carried on here. Every Deputy, whether supporting or opposing the Government, gave his point of view and the Minister did his best to deal with all the matters before him in the way a Minister should.

Sometimes matters come to the notice of public representatives and the public representatives often wonder why Department officials did not deal with them in a different way. From my own admittedly limited experience of these things, I am puzzled by the fact that if you look up an Act or Ministerial Order, it seems to say one thing while the persons administering it administer it in another way. If you go to see them, they are able to point to an obscure section of the legislation to explain why they are doing things in that way.

I should like to start off where Deputy MacEoin finished and deal with the question of people who do not get credit for the service for which they were paid. I am referring to a group of officers who were retired because—I can say this without fear of contradiction—there was a change of Government in 1947. It is rather unfortunate that the people affected were almost all supporters of the National Army at the commencement of the State and were therefore opposed to the Government who made the change. I do not think that was the whole reason why this happened because in the intervening period from the time the Truce was signed, those officers up to the time of their retirement loyally served not alone the Government for which they had fought but also those against whom they had fought.

Somebody said last night that if the Emergency did nothing else it at least taught the young people of the country to pull together and did away with a lot of the political bitterness that had existed until then. I quite agree with that. The thanks of the nation should go to these people to whom I am referring because what they did impressed upon those who became members of the Army, myself included, that there was no room for politics in the Army. It is hard sometimes to get a civilian to understand that you can be politically opposed to something and yet in a period of national emergency, be prepared to fight for exactly that thing to which you are politically opposed. That is what happened here during the emergency years. The people who were mainly responsible for bringing that about were the officers, N.C.O.s and men who had been in the Army from the start and who had proved that they were above politics.

It is a pity, therefore, that somebody took a petty decision which did a grave injustice to a small number of men, 40 to 50. Those people had, during the period of the previous Government, been given an extension of service and, with the change of Government, that extension was cancelled. There might be a very good reason for the cancellation. The reason given at the time, which, in my opinion, was an acceptable one, was that by retaining those people in the Army, the avenue of promotion for younger officers was being blocked. I have no objection at all to that, despite the fact that, perhaps, some of the people who were pushed out were much better men than many of those who remained in the Army. However, that is one of those things. They had finished their service and were entitled to go out on pension. It was reasonable to say they should not have been retained any longer but the previous Government had allowed them to remain and had guaranteed them an extension of service. When the change of Government took place, that extension was cancelled. After a bit of chess-playing, moving backward and forward, eventually it was agreed that the remaining two years which they would have served, if there had not been a change of Government, would be treated as paid service.

Those men were retired from the Army and received not alone their ordinary pay for two years but any increase in salary which occurred during the two years; in fact, there were three increases. At the end of the two years, they were paid an ordinary pension. Then they found they did not get credit for the two years nor for the increments which had been paid to a number of them during the two years. That was entirely wrong.

Of course it was wrong.

I honestly believe a mistake was made somewhere. I appeal to the Minister, who is a big man—I am not referring to his stature—and who has proved that already by some of the things he has done in the Department—to have another look at this matter. I am sure he will agree with me that an injustice was done, wittingly or unwittingly, and that that injustice can be remedied only by giving these officers the credit for the period during which they were retained on full pay and by adding to their pension the value of the increments which they received. They are entitled to that.

There is another small matter, that during that period some of them had to have hospital treatment. Normally, if they had been wearing uniform instead of being outside receiving full pay, they would have received that treatment as part of their Army entitlement. That cost some of them a lot of money. I do not want to labour the point—Deputy MacEoin has already referred to it—but I hope the Minister will consider it.

I do not know what political Party these people support or whether they support any. I am pretty sure none of them supports mine but because I am aware of some of the things these people did and some of the sacrifices they had to make during their period of Army life, I believe they have been treated shabbily. A slip-up has been made and nobody should be too big to admit he made a mistake. If that is done, those men will get justice even at this late stage and everybody in this House will applaud the Minister for being big enough to do that. Irrespective of whether these people fought on the Treaty side or against the Treaty in 1922, or whether down through the years they voted one way or the other, when they have completed their service, having served the country faithfully, they should get what they are entitled to.

The whole question of Army pensions is one which, as Deputy MacEoin has said, one could talk about for a week and not be finished. Last night, we were discussing the effects of pay and conditions on recruitment but there is something else which must be taken into consideration, that is the question of Army pensions. If anybody sits down to consider the pensions being offered to soldiers after 21 years' service, I do not think he would expect any intelligent young man to take up the Army as a career, or that anybody would join the Army in the prime of life, remain there for 21 years, no matter what else happened in the meantime, and then be prepared to accept the miserable pension given to serving soldiers leaving the Army. Deputy MacEoin referred to the fact that quite a number of soldiers have gone off the list and that would show a reduction.

Another problem which the Minister must consider is that of the emergency soldiers, those who joined from 1939 to 1942. The big rush went off after that. Any of those who remained have now completed 21 years and that must, of necessity, affect the amount of money which has to be paid out in pensions. Do not let us forget, however, that with the amount they are receiving, the effect cannot be very great.

There is also the problem that when a man retires from the Army, he often finds he cannot get a job. Perhaps this has nothing to do with pensions, except that, when he comes to retire and to go into civilian life, having had 21 years' Army service and not having been trained for anything else, he cannot expect to compete in civilian life for a job with people who up to that age have been working in such a job. For that reason, if for no other, it is up to the Department of Defence to see to it that they receive compensation by way of pension. There are such people in their early forties but there are others much older than that, people going on 50, 55 and 60. They have no hope in the world of ever obtaining employment. All they can depend on is what they get from the labour exchange and from the Army until they reach 70 years of age, when they will receive a contributory old age pension.

Luckily, the Department of Defence can do nothing about the money which these people will be getting by way of contributory old age pension, but they can and have done something about the special allowance. The most shameful treatment ever meted out in this country was that given to certain people receiving special allowances when they qualified for contributory old age pensions. They had been hearing for months about the increase, but, when they eventually got it, they found their special allowances had been reviewed and, even if the special allowances were not cut off entirely, they were reduced very substantially. That caused a great deal of annoyance to these old men. It is, of course, correct to say they are getting fuel.

I am rather sick and tired of hearing people talk about the numbers increasing every year where military service pensions are concerned. There is almost invariably a questioning attitude, to say the least of it. They forget that many of these people who played a man's part in the early days of this country's fight for freedom did not subsequently apply for either a pension or an allowance. They were able to get along without either. They are now reaching a time in life when they need some kind of pension or special allowance. It is most unfair that the Department should hold up their applications for months while carrying out investigations. It is even more unfair that the general public seem to think the whole thing a kind of joke. They argue that these people must not have been entitled to a pension; otherwise they would have applied for it 20 years ago. That attitude should not be allowed to go unchallenged any longer. Deputy MacEoin is quite right when he says that in ten years' time there will be very few of these people left. The number grows smaller every year. Those who are entitled to a pension or a special allowance should get it with the minimum of delay.

A few weeks ago, a man approached me. He is not a political supported of mine. He had made representations to a Minister in relation to a special allowance. He is almost blind and unable to work. He has no means of existence of any kind. The special allowance was not materialising. He told me what he had done and I was able to tell him that the Minister whom he had approached had a very good Army record himself and I was sure he would do a great deal for him; I said the particular Minister was the right person to approach. However, I made some inquiries. I was told that inquiries were almost completed but that it would be some time before a decision would be made. I asked what "some time" meant and I was told "some weeks at least". In the meantime, that old man is dependent upon the charity of his neighbours. That situation should not be allowed to continue. I appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to expedite the granting of pensions or allowances to those who are entitled to them. If people are not entitled to them, they should be told so, and told immediately.

There is also the question of service medals. Twelve months ago, a man applied for a service medal. Inquiries were made and everything seemed to be in order. Then he heard no more about it. I was asked to make inquiries. I was told inquiries were proceeding. They are still proceeding. That was 12 months ago. It surprises me that such a simple matter should take 12 months. There cannot be today the great pressure that there was ten, 12 or 15 years ago. I happened to meet another man who applied for a service medal three years ago. He is still waiting for it. His brother, who applied two years later, was able to pull strings; he got his service medal without any trouble. Now that kind of thing is intolerable. A man is either entitled to the medal or he is not. If it is not possible to decide within 12 months whether or not a man is entitled to a medal, there is something seriously wrong.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that applications for military service pensions or allowances and applications for medals are dealt with as quickly as possible. I also appeal to the Minister to rectify another anomaly. If a man drawing a military service pension gets State employment, a deduction is made from his pension. If he gets outside employment, no such deduction is made. I think the man should get the rate for the job and, if he is entitled to a pension, then that pension should be left to him intact.

Finally, with regard to proposed increases, the Minister gave no figures as to what the increases will be. Deputy MacEoin was rather intrigued by that. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, will give us some idea of what the increases he proposes to give will be.

Or give us an example.

The matter I wish to raise on this Estimate is one in relation to administrative procedures adopted in cases where pensions or gratuities are granted. I should like to emphasise the importance of two things: first, proceeding in accordance with the law and, secondly, expedition. What I have to say stems from a case which was dealt with here yesterday from another aspect on the Defence Estimate, namely, the withholding of a gratuity from an officer. Its relevancy to this Estimate comes from the fact that this gratuity was withheld in part, the circumstances in which it was withheld, and the alleged reasons justifying the withholding of it.

The history of the case is that the officer in question retired apparently on 1st August, 1961. On 9th November, 1961, he was officially informed by the Department that he had been awarded his pay and a gratuity. The letter was in the customary form. The important part of it is as follows:

I am directed by an tAire Cosanta to inform you that in accordance with the terms of the above he has granted you retired pay at the rate of £397 2s. Od. per annum which is payable from 1st August, 1961, inclusive, the date of your retirement from Na Buan Óglaigh together with the married officer's gratuity of £836.

The letter then goes on to state:

Retired pay is payable monthly in arrear. Payable orders for £350, representing advances on foot of the gratuity, have already been issued to you. The balance of the gratuity, namely, £486, is being withheld provisionally.

From the point of view of the matter at issue, the rest of the letter is unimportant. It would seem that some inquiries were made but nothing further was heard from the Department until the issue of a letter dated 30 Deire Fóir, 1961, which notified variations in the amount of retired pay and gratuities but went on to say, simply: "I am to add that the other matters raised in your letter will be the subject of a separate reply."

It would seem, then, that it was necessary to seek the assistance of a Deputy further to elucidate the matter. Finally, the Deputy was informed in December that the money was being withheld and the reference in the letter to the circumstances under which the money is withheld is of some importance to us here. It refers to the withholding of portion of a gratuity in connection with certain deficiencies in stores which were under the control of the officer. It goes on to inform the Deputy that in April, 1961, the N.C.O. involved in the theft of a major portion of the missing stores was convicted in the civil courts and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with hard labour, the sentence not to be enforced if he forthwith paid the sum of £200 and the balance of the loss—£463 3s. 9d.—within six months. It went on to say that, so far, only the sum of £200 had been repaid to the Department and that the matter was being considered by the courts.

The letter then went on to say that as soon as the decision of the civil court was available, the matter would be brought to a conclusion with the minimum delay. It adds:

In the meantime, having regard to the findings of the court of inquiry which investigated the deficiencies, the Department has no option but to withhold from the gratuity payable to (officer's name), sufficient moneys to cover any possible loss to public funds. The total amount outstanding in respect of deficiencies in the stores that were under (officer's name) control is £485 7s. 11d. and a sum of £486 has been withheld from his gratuity.

At this stage, I want to make this comment. It was not until the officer had left the Defence Forces, had retired, that this matter was notified to him. After he had ceased to be subject to military law—that is, after he had retired—the first letter informed him of his retired pay and gratuity and then informed him of the deduction. It was not until a considerable time had elapsed, and it was necessary to invoke the extraordinary procedure of asking a Deputy to inquire about the matter, that this reply is received which says two things.

In the first place, the reply states that another person had defrauded to approximately the amount that is now being withheld from the officer. That is the first thing. It would appear that the attitude of the Department in this case was simply this : it is all right; this other man was convicted; he was found guilty; he undertook to pay; the matter was disposed of. If he pays the Department are not worried but if the arrangement fails they turn round on the officer. I cannot see for the life of me why the officer was not liable for that money in the first instance if he was liable in the second instance. It seems to me to be simply a device to cover a deficiency that would arise if this convicted person did not make the restitution which apparently he had undertaken to make and which apparently was acceptable to the Department. That is my first comment.

My second comment concerns the reason for withholding the gratuity— it is implied in this letter that the justification for the withholding of this gratuity is the result of the findings of a court of inquiry. What else can this sentence mean : "In the meantime, having regard to the findings of the court of inquiry which investigated the deficiencies, the Department has no option . . ." Very good. I have made my first point in regard to what I might call the last minute attempt to salvage, at this officer's expense, what is lost in the case of the failure of the person who is convicted to pay up. Now, on the question of the court of inquiry, the reason for withholding the gratuity, if not explicit, is implied in that it was the findings of the court of inquiry that justified it.

At this point, relevancy may be strained because it is not relevant to this issue, whether or not the Army complied with proper procedure in regard to that court of inquiry while the officer was serving. That matter was dealt with yesterday. But, having given the reason, having given the court of inquiry as the reason for withholding the deduction, it surely was a reasonable request to ask for the findings of the court of inquiry.

Did the officer attend the court of inquiry?

I am slightly out of order here. Those were matters for yesterday. However, there are rights under these regulations—the Deputy asked me the question—in regard to an officer who may be under suspicion in adverse circumstances. It is doubtful whether these regulations were complied with properly in regard to that. I want to keep strictly to what is relevant here in regard to his position now, for the moment anyway.

I have quoted the letter, which made the two points. The non-commissioned officer defaulted. Therefore, they were going to go after the officer; apparently, if the non-commissioned officer had not defaulted the officer, his conduct or his liability, would not have been in question. It raises some very interesting points about whether he was in default or not. Surely the blame attaching to him should not depend on the accidental circumstances as to whether a third person, to wit, a non-commissioned officer, duly convicted of an offence, duly made restitution in accordance with his undertaking or not? But that is what appears to be happening in this case.

The court of inquiry, as I say, is a matter that is, at the moment, anterior to this and was properly dealt with yesterday. But, following some correspondence with the officer, through his solicitors this time—it was necessary for him to bring in solicitors; he has apparently been trying to get information—following that correspondence a reply, again to the Deputy in question, reiterates the point that there is still a sum of £463 due and owing and it makes the point : "It appears to me that the failure of the officer in the administrative responsibility imposed on him by the relevant Defence Forces Regulations contributed to making possible the theft of the stores and he must expect to be required to make a payment towards the deficiencies."

Very good. The Minister made the point at length yesterday in his closing speech on the Estimate. The necessity for discipline and proper order in these matters will not be denied by anyone but there is a way of ascertaining these matters and certainly the way is not to let an officer leave the Army and then withhold his money without explanation and furthermore with every appearance of trying to deny information as to what was relevant to the matter in issue.

Again, following further letters, on 5th April, the following answer was received and at least a reason was given. The letter does two things. First of all, it denies the officer access to the findings of the court of inquiry, although he has been told virtually that it is having regard to the findings of the court of inquiry that the gratuity is being withheld. When he requests the findings of the court of inquiry and information, they are refused to him and when he presses the point, he is given a technical statutory reason which I will come to in a moment.

The letter reads:

I am directed to inform you that the Defence Act, 1954, and regulations made thereunder prescribe the cases in which there is an entitlement to a copy of the proceedings and findings of a court of inquiry. Your client's is not such a case, and consequently he is not entitled to a copy of the findings of the Court of Inquiry to which you refer.

When one looks at the matter, one finds that he is not entitled to get information because he has ceased to be subject to military law, but there is no good substantial reason given to him why he will not be given the information which is so vital to his rights in the matter. He is given a technical reason by a Department of State. I do not consider that is good administration.

If he were a serving officer he would get a free copy.

The Deputy had better read the regulations for himself. Actually, if he were serving in certain circumstances, he would be entitled. I take exception to the fact that he is let out of the Army without any inkling that anything will happen and, when he is safely out, £400 of his gratuity is withheld, and then, having been given a reason related to the court of inquiry, when he seeks information, he is given a technical reason: "You are out now and it is too late to assert any rights you have under that regulation." That is what I object to.

The regulation in question reads as follows:

A copy of the proceedings and findings of a court of inquiry delivered to a person whose trial by court martial has been ordered under section 181 of the Act shall be delivered to such person free of charge.

That is subsection (1). Subsection (2) reads:

A person subject to military law shall be entitled to a copy of the proceedings and findings of a court of inquiry on request by him and upon making payment therefor at a rate of fourpence for every folio of seventy words where—

(a) he is to be tried by courtmartial (except as provided in paragraph (1) in respect of any matter which is the subject of a finding of such court); or

(b) his character or military reputation is, in the opinion of the Minister, adversely affected by anything in the proceedings or findings of such court, unless the Minister sees reason to order otherwise.

I understand that the reason given is that he is not subject to military law. I could have understood it if the reason given were the Minister's consideration as provided in the section. In any event, he has been refused that information and the money has been withheld.

The next point which is interesting is that it goes on to give another reason:

The balance of the gratuity is withheld from (Name) pursuant to Article 39A of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme 1937, as inserted by Article 33 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1947.

That is the answer of the Department. The 1937 section referred to states:

(1) Every assignment of and every charge on and every agreement to assign or charge a pension or gratuity shall be void.

(2) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the deduction from any pension or gratuity of any moneys that may be due or owing to the Minister or any other Minister or any Department of State by the person to whom such pension or gratuity is payable.

It should be noted that the original section does not empower the deduction. That is important. The net result of that paragraph is unimportant. The important provision is Article 33 of the 1947 scheme. Paragraph 39A of Article 33 provides:

There may be deducted, from any pension or gratuity, any moneys or the amount of any public claim due or owing to a State authority by the person to whom such pension or gratuity is payable.

It goes on to specify:

For the purposes of this subarticle—

(i) each of the following shall be a public claim—

(I) the sum required to make good any loss, deficiency or irregular expenditure of public money,

(II) any deficiency, loss, damage or destruction of public stores, buildings or other public property of which, after due investigation, no explanation satisfactory to the Minister is given by the person or persons responsible.

As I say, these are the authorities. Before I treat with the administration of the sections by the Department in this case, it is relevant to point out that it seems rather hard that the officer is let go before he has a chance of asserting any rights he has while subject to military law and that then he is virtually refused information and told that the court of inquiry has a bearing on the matter and it is implied that the findings of the court of inquiry are the reason why part of his gratuity is withheld. Then, for a technical reason, he is denied the findings of that inquiry and, finally, months afterwards, he is given at last the authority under which the gratuity is withheld.

I now want to embark on the consideration of that authority and of the administration of the Department in its executive function of administering the necessary statutory provisions in this matter. In any case, one turns to the Act itself which is the foundation for the law. The Department is not entitled to act arbitrarily in these matters; it is constrained to act in accordance with the powers that are given by this House and these powers are primarily contained in the Defence Forces Act.

In the Act of 1954, Section 97 provides for the making of regulations in particular which would cover this matter and such regulations have been made. But Section 100 in the Act says:—

No deduction shall be made from any pay, allowance, or grant unless—

(a) the deduction is authorised by regulations made under subsection (2) of Section 97, or by Sections 98 or 99 or by an Act of the Oireachtas, or

(b) the deduction is authorised by subsection (2) of this Section.

Subsection (2) says:

Where a member of the Defence Forces consents in writing to such deduction and the deduction has the approval of the prescribed authority, a deduction may be made from that member's pay, allowances, gratuities or grants.

Subsection (2) does not arise because in this case there was no such consent.

Section 101 next provides for the withholding of pay in certain cases. It says:

Where any question arises as to

(a) whether any pay, allowance, gratuity or grant is due or,

(b) the amount of any pay, allowance, gratuity or grant due, or

(c) whether a forfeiture or deduction falls to be made of or from any pay, allowance, gratuity or grant, or

(d) the amount of a forfeiture or a deduction to be made of or from any pay, allowance, grant, or gratuity due,

the question shall be determined with all convenience and pending such determination, the pay, allowance, gratuity or grant may be withheld, in whole or in part.

It may be withheld pending the due and proper determination of the matter but it may not be withheld indefinitely or improperly. It may be withheld, but only in so far as the regulations allow. Section 100 says that no deduction shall be made from any pay, allowance, gratuity or grant, except it is authorised by regulation. That is what covers this case. It is not enough that it might be equitably due. There must be a regulation and authority for withholding. That apparently has been recognised by the Department and the Department says that the regulations which justify this action are contained in Article 39 (a) of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme, 1937 as amended by the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Scheme, 1947.

I would like to point out two significant things in the 1937 and 1947 Schemes. Article 39 states:

Nothing in this Article shall prevent the deduction from any pension or gratuity of any moneys which may be due or owing to the Minister or any other Minister or any Department of State by the person to whom such pension or gratuity is payable.

That section of the 1937 Scheme does not confer any power to deduct. It merely says that the earlier subsection does not deprive any power that may be elsewhere. The Department have a stronger case in Section 33 (1) which says that there may be deducted from any pay or gratuity any moneys "due or owing". That means moneys which are, not which may be, due or owing in respect of a defined public claim. Whether the claim is due or owing is a question of legal determination but it must be a public claim as here defined. In the case in question, there must have been a claim for moneys due or owing of which no explanation satisfactory to the Minister has been given.

I have three comments to make on the case put by the State. The first is that it has not been established not has any evidence been produced to show whether the claim that is being made is due or owing. To make a claim is one thing; to have it due or owing is another. The Minister has made a claim, but is it due and owing? If it is not, there is no right to withhold the gratuity.

The second point is: is it a valid claim within the meaning of that section? Was there a due investigation? There was or there was not. If there was a due investigation, what is the objection to giving the results of that investigation and standing by it? If there was not a due investigation, the claim under the section falls down. Let us assume that the court of inquiry was a due investigation within the meaning of the section. The Article says "where no explanation satisfactory to the Minister is given by the person responsible." What opportunity did the officer get to give a satisfactory explanation?

Under paragraph 117 of the Regulations of 1954, there are very definite procedures laid down where military reputation or character is adversely affected. It does not appear that this officer got the opportunity, while serving, of asserting fully his rights under that paragraph. Having regard to that and the fact that no satisfactory explanation is given by the person or persons responsible, and there has been no effort to seek that, it is a doubtful matter indeed whether the procedures in this case were all that could have been desired.

However, I do not want to take up the time of the House by labouring the details of the point. I am sorry that here is a typical case where it is necessary for Deputies to intervene and that is a pity, because I think in these matters Deputies should not have to intervene. Secondly, if there are further and consequential losses to the Exchequer arising out of matters like this, it would be well to ask in the beginning whether they could have been avoided. With regard to the officer himself, so much for his claim. I question whether this deduction is rightly made, as it was made, and whether the payment to him should not be expedited.

There is another matter affecting officers on their retirement which causes me some concern. If an officer has retired, and consequently has lost the privileges of military law under the Act. while apparently he is to retain the liabilities, and sanctions are applied to him, he must then face having to press his case in the way this case was pressed and face the fact that there is to be made a charge of negligence against him and it is going to be said of him that he "failed in the administrative responsibility reposed in him... in contributing to make possible the theft of the stores." All this, after he has retired.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

The point I was making was that it is a matter not to be passed by that when an officer has left the Army and has got a gratuity, when he is faced with asserting his rights, he not only has to face difficulties in the way of his claim but when he does press it through, when he does not succumb to the obstacles put in his way, then such matters as these, the matters that came out here, reflecting on his reputation and character, are raised against him after he has lost the protection of the Act.

I was referring to the phrase "the administrative responsibility imposed on him by the relative Defence Force Regulations contributed to making possible the theft of the stores." That is affecting his military reputation and character. Why was that charge not made when he was in the service? Why were not the proper procedures invoked if the court of inquiry which was held, adversely reflected on him? There were the provisions of Article 117 of the 1954 Regulations which I quoted and the provisions of Article 123. There are ample provisions in military law for getting after him. If there was a deficiency, it is a question as to whether the proper procedures under the Defence Forces Acts were followed. There are enough provisions here in this Act to make the man amenable and have the thing properly ascertained in accordance with law.

Take Section 157 of the Defence Forces Act, which applies to the destruction, loss or improper disposal of property; or even take Section 166, which relates to the negligent performance of duties. All are provided for in the original Act and indeed there is the famous one, whatever the section is, which provides in relation to conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. If the matter were as serious as to warrant a fine of £400, it seems to me to be a matter to be referred to some such section as this. It was certainly a matter to be taken as serious and there was a court of inquiry and if the court of inquiry found that he had contributed to make the theft of the stores possible and should be required to make payments towards the deficiency, why was that not intimated to him before he left the Army? Why were the proper steps not taken and the necessary procedure instituted against him?

I think it is altogether too casual a matter to let it go and then when he has been inquired into, to be told that he is being awarded his rights under the Defence Forces Acts and he is also told that this money is being deducted and unless he is prepared to, apparently he will have no redress-The frightening thing is if this matter were let go, whether he paid or not, there would be a decision apparently on the frightening principle that in the case of a man found duly guilty of the theft, or whatever you like to call the crime, who had undertaken to pay £200 first and then a further £450 or £460 odd, afterwards, and who actually had paid £200 and then defaulted, this failure to pay the balance should be the cause of what I might call the conviction of the other man. Surely there is no law or order in that kind of procedure? For that reason, the Minister himself should give particular attention to this case. It is perturbing that it is necessary for Deputies such as myself and Deputy Booth to speak in this way. I personally greatly regret it but I should be doing less than my duty as a Deputy, if I were to speak other than the way I have spoken on this matter. I leave the case at that.

There is just one other important matter which I should like to refer to the Minister. I am somewhat confused. I did not look into the details but I thought there were certain regulations under which N.C.O.s and men got gratuities on retirement. I am informed that, when soldiers with long service retire, they do not get a gratuity although officers do. Perhaps, I am advocating legislation when I mention this matter now.

What I have in mind are one or two cases of soldiers who have given long and loyal service to the Army during the periods of office of the various Governments. They will get their pensions but it is rather hard that they should go out without something in the nature of a gratuity to set them up during the transition period. It is those men who, after 30 or 40 years' service, will find it most difficult to adjust themselves to civilian life. I may be running the risk of advocating legislation in this matter. I commend it to the Minister's attention.

I am particularly interested in the Old IRA. Some of the Deputies who spoke laboured more on behalf of the Army. I am more concerned with the Old IRA. I understand that five-sixths of the Old IRA receive less than 15/- a week. That is a complaint. They further complain, especially those who took the anti-Treaty side, that they lost ten years' pension by reason of the fact that they did not benefit until 1932, whereas those who supported the Treaty and who benefited under the 1924 Act had their pensions from 1924. Those are some of the complaints that members of the Old IRA make, especially those who fought against the Treaty. They actually lost ten years' pension rights and five-sixths have less than 15/- a week.

Medal holders have always maintained that they suffered a very grave injustice by being labelled as noninterventionists and as not having performed any service. Unless you have a military service pension you are alleged not to have done any military service. Over 40,000 persons who have medals have no pensions. Those people feel very sore. Apart from not having obtained any pension or gratuity for their service, they feel insulted by the fact that they wear a medal without a bar which singles them out in any company as men who did not perform any military service. Persons who have a military service pension have a bar but, where there is no pension, there is no bar. In other words, anyone who knows the difference can always say that So-and-So must have done some fighting while the rest did nothing.

That is how they feel about it. They say there should never have been a bar granted to those who got pensions. There should be nothing to distinguish one Old IRA man from another. They feel it an insult. They demand that they also should get a medal. They feel they are singled out and insulted. That is the feeling of the average Old IRA man. That is what they discuss at their average monthly meeting.

These men feel that they were as much entitled to a pension as anybody else. At least, they have always alleged that they were entitled to a gratuity for services they gave. They allege that having the right to a medal proves they were on parade and on active service throughout the period of hostilities. They were, in fact, on parade during the first critical dates. Unless they were actively serving or at least on parade from 1st April to 1st July, 1921, they would not be entitled to a medal.

They argue that being on active parade they were there to perform service if asked to do so. The only difference between those who performed service and themselves is that some were privileged in a nice private way by their superior officers. Those who did not receive a pension and who possess a medal were just as willing. They state that their lives and liberties were as much at stake because in many cases men were arrested on parade or coming off parade, or were killed and thrown into ditches, as can be proved. They were subject to ill treatment. They have always alleged that they were as active as those who got pensions because they were on the job awaiting orders.

It would appear from the writings of some people that about 2,000 or 3,000 men did all the fighting and that all the rest were under the bed. The fact is that the rest were available. They had to be. They paraded during that period of danger. They were there awaiting the danger. If they were not, they could not have got a service medal. These men feel sore about the matter.

I want to deal with another cause of complaint. This has to do with the question of the special allowances. Those men state that, having been denied a pension and a gratuity and having received nothing but a medal which probably cost the State five bob, they ought to be at least treated generously when they become infirm or old. Do not forget those men claim that, taking the Civil War and the Tan War combined, they gave up to five or six years' service. Many of them served long years of imprisonment; they lost their employment; they suffered in many other ways; but despite all that suffering they never received one penny.

Despite all that suffering, others attained the age of 70 years and became subject to the means test. The insult of it! Even if there was no justice done when they were young, even though they lost so much in their earlier years, surely it was not too much for them to expect that they would be sustained when they reached the age of three score and ten? Surely it is not too much to ask the Minister now that he do something for them even at this late stage of their lives?

It has been stated that the mortality rate among the Old IRA has meant a reduction of the Estimate this year of £18,000. It is well known that the ages of those still surviving is somewhere between 56 and 70. Is it not reasonably obvious, therefore, that this decrease of £18,000 this year will become progressively greater in each succeeding year and that therefore the Minister knows that without having to increase taxation at all, he will have substantial sums of money at his disposal for this purpose?

For that reason alone, I would ask him to reconsider the whole question and endeavour to do something for those who suffered and were let down 40 years ago by his Party's Government. At least the Free State Government looked after their men, many of whom during the Civil War were in the Army and later got good positions in the Civil Service. Those unfortunates who were led the other way got nothing. Thousands of them had to run to Canada and the United States; others had to sign for the dole and were left to start from scratch. There is not much sympathy for those people among the present generation. To them, those men are like the leaders of '98 were to us in 1921. It is therefore essential that the Government, even at this late stage, should do something for them.

Some months ago, I put down a question asking how many persons had service medals and I was told 58,000. I am satisfied there were 58,000 persons in the IRA or kindred bodies, but I am also satisfied that there were not 58,000 serving during the three months before the Truce. I can therefore understand the Minister's reluctance to rush into the matter of granting special allowances. I can understand why he has to probe carefully and look for all possible evidence because I think there is a fair amount of fixing up being done by pals. While these people may have been members of the IRA between 1918 and 1921, my own experience is that during the safer period of 1919 and early 1920, you had an average of 50 or 60 on parade but that during the three months immediately before the Truce, the average parade was 20 or 30 men.

Therefore, if only half the number were on parade during the most critical period, I cannot see how 58,000 got medals. It is obvious to me that some of the men who were not serving during the critical period got pals to vouch for them, or perhaps they were able to get around officers by taking advantage of the time lapse. Perhaps they said to officers: "Do you remember me", and that officers, in all good faith, answered "Yes" being at a disadvantage because of the time lapse. It would have been hard for those officers to fix in their minds details of that critical period.

Because of all these factors, I think that in the case of a large number of these 58,000, the evidence should be re-examined and some form of certificate should be issued as to whether or not the Department are satisfied with the evidence. The importance of such a certificate at this stage is that several people may not apply for these special allowances for the next five or ten years and there is the danger that practically everybody who would be involved in a re-examination will be dead or cannot be found and the Minister will have no choice but to grant the special allowances. In that way, many deserving cases will be denied while "phoneys" will be given the special allowances. That is why I ask the Minister to have all cases carefully re-examined so that the evidence will be there at some future time when applications come in for special allowances.

There is another issue about which I am concerned—that of disability. I know quite a lot about disability claims. In 1932, an Act was passed under which pensions were granted for disability directly attributable to military action. Later, in 1937, another Act made allowance for aggravation where it could be proved that service aggravated some ailment the applicant may have had. There are a number of cases outstanding but I do not want to mention names. Only about a dozen are affected because of the qualifying periods specified under these two Acts. Applicants were given a year in which to apply and if they failed to do so, they did not come within the ambit of the legislation. In this respect, there are some cases where the disablement did not become apparent until after that qualifying period had elapsed. Deputy MacEoin pointed to this matter and I would now point out to the Minister that his two predecessors promised me they would look into it.

There is one such case in respect of which the evidence is with the Department. It concerns a man who applied under the 1932 Act, believing he came under that Act, and, too late, realised that he did not. He was advised he was certain to get it under the 1937 Act but, when he applied, he was told he had not done so within the statutory period. So, for 20 years, he has had a genuine case and nothing can be done about it. There are about a dozen such cases. Perhaps the Minister or previous Ministers were afraid that, if they granted an extension, there would be hundreds of applications. That is not the case at all. The Minister could easily provide a section giving him power to decide whether or not there were grounds for the application. He could very easily word an amendment covering the dozen or so cases and thus do justice to these people.

I know of a case of a man who has been disabled for the past 40 years and who has never got a penny. That is a case that even Deputy General MacEoin cannot fix. The Act says that unless the application was made 20 years ago, it cannot be dealt with now. I would particularly ask the Minister to be more generous with the special allowance cases. They were deprived of a great deal in their youth and that should be made up for now. Next year there will be a decrease of £30,000 and the provision will be decreasing each year.

I wish to make a case on behalf of members of the Old IRA and members of the National Army who have retired. Deputies are being continually approached by members of the Old IRA who gave good and loyal service. Now, in their old age, when they feel they are entitled under the Act to something, they find their claims rejected. We have attended meetings organised by the Old IRA at which the real core of that force were present. The cases put forward to us as Deputies made sad listening, indeed. Some of these unfortunate people had done as much for the cause as those who had been paid big pensions. Perhaps some of them were in and out of hospital; perhaps there were needy circumstances at home; perhaps their wives and families were in dire need. In any event, these people apparently were not covered by the Act.

I would appeal to the Minister and the Government to consider these cases and give some allowance, even in borderline cases. The number of these people is becoming steadily fewer each year and any money provided for them would be money well spent. We are often told that some of these people did not have any active service to their credit for the last three months of the qualifying period. But it is possible they were in poor health or were in prison. If they had been in prison they could hardly be put down as people without active service, because it was their activities put them there. That clause is unfair and should be removed.

Allowances have been paid to some people but the amounts have hardly been in keeping with the service they have given. I was approached by a married woman who raised a family. She gave very active service and is very proud of the medal she has, but she told me the allowance she was paid—£4 10s. Od. per year. Surely a person entitled to anything for services rendered to the country should get more than that? This girl risked her life to do secret service work for the IRA and that is the only allowance she got at the end of her days. I was also approached by a married woman in Sligo town whose husband had retired after long and faithful service in the National Army. The allowance paid to him was very meagre. I have not got the actual figure with me but I shall present it to the Department and ask for an explanation. That man was left without any information as to where he stood. He did not know what gratuity or pension was coming to him. The authorities should give him that information and pay him his money. I suppose he is only one of many in that position.

These are people who left their nearest and dearest to go into the hills, not knowing if they would ever come back. They were just as useful, if not more useful, as the most prominent people fighting for the cause. While some people are enjoying substantial incomes, the people to whom I refer are nobody's darlings. I would earnestly appeal to the Government, therefore, now that the majority of these people are becoming old, to give their cases sympathetic consideration.

Bhí tráth ann nuair a shíl a lán daoine nár cheart agus nár ghá pinsin a thabhairt dóibh siúd a bhí ag troid ar son na saoirse toisc nach raibh na daoine a bhí ag troid ag lorg pinsean ná liúntas ar bith. D'imigh roinnt blian thart is cuireadh reacht dlí i bhfeidhm chun pinsin a thabhairt dóibh siúd a bhí in Arm an tSaorstáit. D'imigh roinnt eile blian thart agus nuair a bhí athrú rialtais ann cinneadh ar reacht eile a chur i bhfeidhm ag tabhairt pinsean dóibh siúd nach raibh in Arm an tSaorstáit.

Cé nach réitím lena lán dá bhfuil san Acht sin, ní dócha gur cheart dom gabháil isteach sa ghné sin den scéal anois. Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire, ámh, méadú a thabhairt dóibh siúd go bhfuil pinsean faoi bhun punt sa tseachtain acu agus muran féidir méadú go punt sa tseachtain a thabhairt do gach duine de na sean-Óglaigh, iarraim air méadú réasúnta éigin a thabhairt dóibh.

Nuair a bhí an Teachta Ó Seircín ag caint anois beag dúirt sé go mb'fhéidir gur bronnadh boinn seirbhíse ar roinnt mhaith nach raibh i dteideal a léithéidí d'fháil. B'fhéidir gur tugadh boinn do chorr-dhuinne den tsaghas sin. Cuimhnímis, ámh, gur thug oifigigh na gcomplacht agus na gcathláin teastais dá léithéidí agus go ndearna an Roinn Cosanta na teastais sin a scrúdú go géar.

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do scéim na liúntas speisialta sula dtugtar liúntas fiú amháin dóibh siúd go bhfuil boinn seirbhíse acu. Tugann an t-oifigeach leasa shóisialaigh cuaird orthu agus deineann sé docht, géar ar a gcóir maireachtála. Uaireanta bíonn cuid acu ró-ghéar sa scrúdú agus deineann siad éagóir ar roinnt daoine. Iarraim ar an Aire dearcadh isteach sa ghné sin den scéal agus na rialacha a bhogadh i dtreo is go bhfaigheadh na sean-Óglaigh a bhíonn i ngá liúntas speisialta.

Is minic a ritheann sé liomsa go bhféadfadh cuid acu labhairt mar a labhair an Síothchánach nuair a scoireadh as Arm Shasana é. Seo mar adúirt sé:

Im fhánaí bocht neamh-airdeach

Ag siúl a sráideann bím

D'éis pinsean bhig bheith caite agam

Bíonn an ganntanas im chloí.

Ach ó cheanglas d'ár dtíoránaigh

Ní thaispeánfad m'aghaidh go deo

Imeasc na gcomharsan grámhar

I sean-áitreabh Aherlow.

Níor cheangal na sean-Óglaigh leis an dtíoránach agus táim cinnte go mbeidh an tAire chomh fial, flathúil leo agus is dual d'Aire mar é a bheith.

I wish the TV people would come down to listen to that Irish. I should like to compliment the Deputy.

Go raibh maith agat.

May I draw your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum to hear the "Bard of Armagh"?

May I draw your attention to the fact that the "Bard of Armagh" gave reasonable service to this country without pension or recognition, when the Deputy's progenitor was fighting against us?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

It is not my intention to delay the House in speaking on this Estimate but it is important that I should say that the failure of the Minister to supply details in relation to pensions in submitting these proposals is to be deplored. I understand he intends to give the information when the discussion is finished. It is only right and proper that every Deputy should be afforded an opportunity of saying what he thinks of the Minister's proposals and that is not possible in the absence of the details we expected the Minister to give in his opening statement, particularly in regard to how these increases are to be extended.

Quite a mess has been made out of "operation pensions," if one may call it that, and neither of the major Parties is blameless in that regard. When this matter was being discussed, prominent people from both sides of the House adverted to their experience, but both sides had an opportunity to do something about the problems to which they adverted and they have not done it. We are getting away from the real idea of extending pensions to people who have served their country. We must not lose sight of the fact that we had in this country a volunteer force. I am sure none of the men who went out in the troubled times were mercenary-minded; at least, the majority of them were not.

It would seem, however, that over the years many people have become mercenary-minded and have forgotten their former comrades, some of whom are badly off. It is deplorable that a number of these Old IRA men and Irish Citizen Army men and perhaps National Army men, due to bad economic circumstances, are found to have passed away in St. Kevin's Hospital, more popularly known in Dublin as the poorhouse or the South Dublin Union. It would not be amiss, even at this stage, if the people who get the bulk of these pensions gave expression to conscience and handed them back to the State so that this money could be given to the people who are badly in need of it.

We have heard Deputies from both sides talk about this special allowance and also the means test. Is it not all due to the fact that we have only a small amount of money available and we are trying to spread that small amount of money over a great many people? Perhaps if the people who have too much money, who are wealthy today because of the efforts of these men in the past, these men who are today very badly off, could cease being selfish and give some of this money to those who need it so badly, we should not be discussing this problem here today.

I would appeal to the Minister to bend all his energies to increasing the pensions of the Old IRA, of the members of the Irish Citizen Army, and of the National Army men, who have very small incomes on which to live, and forget about the people who are well off. I also appeal to him to use his influence with the Minister for Finance to ensure that the pensions of these people are not taxed.

I often want to use an old military word when this Pensions Vote comes around, because I was alive and kicking during the period of the pre- and early twenties.

Whom was the Deputy kicking?

I was very young at the time. I took no part in anything, but I saw a good deal. Much to my surprise, in the years that followed, I saw people get pensions and special allowances. I made inquiries from prominent IRA men and I found that they were far more surprised than I was. Last week, or the week before, Deputy Gilhawley tabled a question to the Minister for Defence asking for a list of those drawing pensions and special allowances. I believe the Minister made the information available to him, but it is not on the records of this House.

I should like to tell the Minister about one Old IRA man, a man who was unique; he had been in the Volunteers from the very beginning; he was taken by the Black and Tans as a hostage up and down the country; he had been on hunger strike; he had then gone, as some would say, "Irregular" in that he took the republican side in the Civil War. When the cease fire came, he went back behind his employer's counter, and stayed there. I have no doubt that had that man applied for a pension, he would have got the maximum pension available. He is not a supporter of mine, but he came to me and told me he would like to know who the people were in the constituency of Waterford who were in receipt of military service or Old IRA pensions or allowances. I put down a Parliamentary Question and the list was published in the Official Report. I brought the list to the man. I had never heard him use a swear word before, but he used one when he looked at that list. This man never applied for a pension; he had no intention of applying for a pension; he would have nothing to do with pensions. He said: "I joined the Volunteers. A Volunteer I will remain, and a Volunteer I will die." He died two years ago, a Volunteer. That was a great credit to him.

That is the story of the list, and how I came by it. I have frequently met men who played a very prominent part in what are now called "military actions", actions in which guns were fired by the forces of the British Crown, and guns were fired in reply. Yet these men are today in the extraordinary position that, if they apply for pensions, their applications are turned down. The history of pensions is sometimes forgotten. When the Civil War was over and the Army was being demobilised, certain pensions were paid out to certain officers, but to practically no men who had previous IRA service or who had served in the Army who helped to set up a Government in this country. The list I got from the Minister shows that there were 14 cases in which pensions were paid. The list made out for the 1933 Act contains pages of names.

Deputy Sherwin said here this afternoon that it was the people who fought in what he called the Free State uniform who got pensions. The record and the proof is there. Since the 1933 Act, there has always been dissatisfaction about pensions. There were many people who never had any intention of applying for a pension but, when they saw the pensions being held out, they all rushed in, saying: "Why should we not apply for pensions?"

We find that 56,000 persons were awarded military service medals. The figures are there. The granting of these medals was a very loose kind of business. There was ample proof of that in Kerry. A number of military service medals were awarded, in recent years, mark you, to people in Kerry. After investigation, a great many of these medals had to be returned to the Department of Defence. The recipients of them had no right to them. A mistake was made in Kerry in giving medals to people who had no right or title to them. I ask the Minister to think seriously about whether a great many other people got medals who had no right to them.

There are, too, a great many people in receipt of military service pensions who have no right to them. I want to state specifically and definitely now in this House that the tribunal which awarded these pensions was definitely hostile to any Old IRA man who came fortified with the backing of the officers of the IRA, but without the backing of the Fianna Fáil organisation.

What about 1924 to 1934?

The 1924 Act, as I mentioned, and the Deputy would have heard me if he had been listening, awarded only 12 or 14 pensions. I come now to another aspect. To the city where I live, there came a man from Kerry. He was in a position of great trust in Waterford. He joined the Volunteers very early on. He was an intelligence officer for General Michael Collins. He has proof. He has the commendation of the General Staff here in Dublin for his work. Without any question, he was an officer in the IRA. But, when he went before the tribunal that was to consider his case— I say this with a certain amount of reticence because the man is now dead —the man who was there and who had the say in matters was out of touch and was out of sympathy with the IRA. The man whose case I am pleading now had no chance with the commendation of General Michael Collins behind him. I shall supply that man's name to the Minister. He is a very old man now. It is a dreadful state of affairs that he should be passed over. I want to point out where and how all these mistakes were made. I can go even on the Fianna Fáil side and I can say, also, that mistakes were made for Fianna Fáil supporters.

We have a famous case in Waterford of a man whose funeral I attended after an ambush. Later, he was taken out of hospital, having been kept there in secret. He had been seen lying on the battle ground by members of the RIC. His comrades carried away a dead comrade and gave it out that it was he who had been killed. He was terribly wounded. He took a spray of machine-gun bullets through his chest. I saw the X-ray pictures—and the bullets are still there. He went before the 1933 tribunal. They gave him a measly £7 a year. It nearly broke his heart. He was a rather proud man. He felt he had given service and that he would get recognition for it. Anybody who suffered as he did could not have attended to his business in the years that followed. That can truly be said about anybody who was wounded as desperately as he was.

I have quoted that case not in a spirit of carping criticism. I want to show the Minister that the system of awarding pensions was not a good system. I want to point out that, in the atmosphere of fierce hatred and political division that existed in this country, especially in 1933, it was not a good time for fair play for anybody. I have just shown the House from the side of the two political factions that people who were officers in the IRA could suffer great wrong.

I have no doubt that millions of money were given away to people who had no right to it. I have no doubt, also, that there were thousands of broken-hearted men who had been in the IRA, but whose applications were turned down and left there and discarded. In a great proportion of the cases, they were not rich men. What hurt them was that when their services were weighed, they were found wanting and that the pensions tribunal looked upon them as having no service at all.

I suggest that all this matter might be opened up again. If it is, many people will apply for pensions who would have no right to them but there should be a sufficiently good and impartial mesh in the Minister's Department to deal with every application. It is important to give the chance to any man who has served his country to go before the tribunal, even at this late hour, and to get this late recognition of the services which he rendered. I have no doubt that I have the support of all sides of the House in what I am saying.

I have another case in mind of a man who took part in two ambushes and who was prominent in the movement. He was hot-tempered. He was the kind of man who, if he fell into the hands of the RIC or the Black and Tans, would not receive gentle treatment. He applied for a pension but he got nothing. What really made him, and many others like him, mad was the list of persons receiving pensions and special allowances. I am sure every Deputy has had the same experience. Immediately the question arose in respect of certain persons in receipt of a pension: how did this man get it; why did he get it; what did he do? That seemed to be the tenor of the complaints.

I discovered only this afternoon that five-sixths of those in receipt of military service pensions have less than 15/- a week. We were very ungenerous. I have looked through the list which I received. A list was given out for Limerick, for Wexford, for Kilkenny, for Tipperary and for many other places. I noted that a great number of people were drawing pensions, from £100 upwards, since 1933. I noted that they are in a very good way of life, that they have come on in the world through being in what we term "the movement". I noted they have exceptional jobs.

It is not a case of wanting to take the pension from them but I wonder why they should get it, seeing that they have done all right for themselves. The money these people are getting should be given to their poorer comrades who did not do so well in the second battle, the battle after they left the IRA, the battle of life. These are the people the Minister should look to. It may be said that one cannot recap on all that. I would recap on it because it was unjustly done, unfairly done and not well done.

Further consideration of the Vote postponed (Deputy T. Lynch).

Barr
Roinn