There have been suggestions that the smaller pensions should be brought up to a certain minimum figure, but I think I should stress the fact that military service pensions were designed to be a measure of the service given by the applicants, and even if an arrangement were made whereby the low pensions were increased, it is inevitable that all other military service pensioners would seek a proportionate increase also. The purpose to be served, which the proposers of that method of improving the low pensions had in mind, has been achieved in fact by the scheme of special allowances. Deputy Tully was not correct when he said that five-sixths of the service pensions are below £25 each. The proportion of the total of such pensions below the figure of £25 would not exceed one-third of the whole.
Private Members' Business. - Amendment of Army Pensions Acts: Motion (Resumed).
My information came from the Old IRA Federation.
If Deputy Tully is not satisfied, I shall have that point furthere examined.
I should be very glad if the Minister did.
Deputy Carroll mentioned on the last occasion I came before the Dáil with these pension matters, and again last night, that there was a small number of Fianna men who had been denied recognition. I asked on the first occasion that Deputy Carroll should write to me about them, and in a conversation subsequently, I also asked him to do so, but I have not heard from him. I repeat now that if he gives me the names of the cases he has in mind, I shall certainly have them examined as sympathetically as possible.
With regard to the second point of Deputy MacEoin's motion, I should like to say that the Army Pensions Acts already provide pensions for those suffering from disease arising from service in the periods 1916 to 1923, and in some cases to 1924, and also the Emergency period. The Acts also apply to service with forces operating under the United Nations. Where a married pension was payable, a pension is also payable to the widow and children in cases where the death of the pensioner was due to the disability for which the pension was granted. Pensions are also payable in respect of wounds and injuries due to service in any period, and in these cases also, widows and children of the deceased pensioners are entitled to pensions where death is due to pensionable disability.
Where a man had a disease like tuberculosis brought on by his service, there is not ordinarily a great deal of difficulty in regard to the cause of death, but it is somewhat difficult in the case of a man who received a slight wound or injury assessed at 20 or 25 per cent., and where the person lives for a period of 40 years. It is very difficult in a case of that sort for the Army Pensions Board to decide that the applicant died after 40 years from the effects of a slight wound of that kind.
I did indicate when the matter was before the Dáil earlier that there were certain aspects of this problem that would require further consideration and I undertook to give them consideration. I am doing that. I refer to cases of major disability. It is conceivable, and I know Deputies have made this point, that if a man had a high percentage of disability he might not be able so to order the course of events in the most favourable way for himself and his family. In other words, the disability may be of such a magnitude that it would in fact interfere with his capacity to earn a living. I do not know exactly how far I will be able to go in this regard but I am very anxious to probe it to the fullest. As I have said, I am having that done.
Deputies are no doubt aware that the Army Pensions Act, 1962, made provision for the payment of allowances to the widows and children of disablement pensioners whose disablement was not due to service but was aggravated, accelerated or excited by service. That was an innovation introduced into that Pensions Act. It applies also to final pensions in respect of a disablement of less than 80 per cent. but not less than 50 per cent. In these cases also death must be due solely or mainly to the pensionable wound or disease. However, as in the case of the major disability cases which I mentioned already, that last point is also being examined.
The problem that seems to me to be of most general interest is that of special allowances and I think it is true to say that the special allowances have met the grievance of those who say the average IRA pension is too small. The special allowances have disposed of that grievance in the best possible way. Originally, special allowances were introduced for the benefit of persons with 1916 service, and then they were gradually extended to military service pensioners, disability pensioners with pre-Truce service, the holders of the medal and Connaught Rangers pensioners.
Deputies know that a special allowance is payable to qualified persons who are unable to support themselves for reasons of bodily or mental infirmity. I think Deputies also know that when the applicant is 70 years of age or over it is taken that he is no longer capable of earning his own living and at that stage the only test is whether, in fact, he is in need. I do not know whether Deputies generally are advocating the complete removal of the means test. These special allowances are annual payments which last 12 months and are then renewed. Therefore, they cannot be called pensions, and for that reason, the means test is deemed to be an essential part of the scheme. The allowance is calculated by reference to an appropriate annual sum which varies with married and single persons, the number of children and whether the applicant is under 70 years of age. For those under 70 years of age, the appropriate annual sum is £130 for a single person and £156 for a married person. For those over 70 years, the appropriate annual sum is £104 for a single person and £147 for a married person, if the applicant has a noncontributory old age pension but his or her spouse has not; otherwise, the sum is £123 10s. The allowance is increased by £11 14s. in respect of each eligible child.
When the allowance was first introduced, the means test was quite rigid, but it has since been modified in many respects. The first £30 of a military service pension, disability pension or Connaught Ranger pension is disregarded in the case of persons under 70 years of age. The increases in these pensions in 1959, 1960 and 1962 are disregarded in the calculation of means.
Another point that has often caused complaint is the inclusion of gifts from children. I should like to say in that regard that gifts from the applicants' children are disregarded to the extent of £50 a year. Previously, only the first £2 was disregarded. The assessment in respect of other contributions from children has also been modified twice in the past four years. The old age pension is disregarded to quite a considerable extent and the increases recently granted in widows' pensions and in old age pensions are likewise disregarded. The value of free maintenance, where it imposes a hardship on the provider, is not taken into account. This is a valuable concession in the case of transfer of farms where maintenance is reserved as a right. The value of maintenance in a hospital, sanatorium or other like institution is not assessed.
Last August, when the appropriate annual sum was increased in all cases by £13 a year, I had to consider whether, with the money available, I should further modify the means test or give a uniform increase to everybody. I decided that a uniform increase was more equitable, as any specific modifications in the means test would only benefit some rather than all. However, as I have shown, the means test has been very considerably modified over the years, and the desirability of further modifications is always kept under review.
There were references last evening to the amount of the special allowances and to the fact that some allowances are small. Such borderline cases inevitably arise when means have to be taken into consideration and, as I said, marital conditions, family circumstances and so on also enter into the matter. But there are also many special allowances considerably over £100. The average special allowance at the present time is £80 and the annual cost of the special allowances is of the order of £550,000, not a great deal below the cost of military service pensions, £650,000. When I mention that figure of £80 as the average amount of a special allowance, I think I have emphasised the point I made earlier, that in fact the scheme of special allowances has more than met the allegation that the average military service pension is too low and, in my opinion, no matter what increases in military service pensions took place, they could not be increased to this average figure for special allowances which I have mentioned.
It was said here last evening that the Department accepts the assessments of the Social Welfare officers as final and conclusive. That is not so. If there is an appeal, the matter is always re-investigated, but even without an appeal, the Department frequently queries assessments if they appear to be too high and the Social Welfare officer's assessments are checked by his supervisor.
Is the re-investigation carried out by the person who originally made the investigation?
The findings of the investigation officer will have to go before his superior in the Department of Social Welfare and he, on his own initiative, can direct the Social Welfare officer to re-investigate.
But it is the same local person?
It would be the same local investigation officer. What I want to point out is that there are two agencies at work to check the assessment of the local investigation officer. There is the investigation officer's superior in the Department of Social Welfare and there are also the deciding officers in the finance branch of the Department of Defence. They very often question the evaluation set on the means of applicants as reported by the investigating officer, if they think them too high. As well, there are senior officers up to the permanent head of the Department to whom, in cases of doubt, questions of this kind can be referred. The Minister is also there. I do not want anybody to think that there is some impersonal machinery in the Department of Defence dealing in a cavalier fashion with these applications. Most cases in which there is any doubt will come before the Minister in one way or another.
The Minister's time concludes at 6.22 p.m.
I am sorry, Sir; you know the mover of the motion spoke more than 20 minutes in excess of his allotted time.
I want to protect other Deputies who would be entitled to get some time and whoever concludes is entitled to 15 minutes.
I would like the Minister to conclude even if he curtails my 15 minutes. I would be prepared to conclude in ten minutes or five minutes, if the Minister concludes before 6.30 o'clock.
I think I could do that.
I do not know if there are other speakers.
I shall be satisfied with five or ten minutes.
I should like two minutes.
I think it is up to Deputy MacEoin to make his contribution out of the time available.
We are all anxious to give an opportunity to other Deputies, if they wish to speak. If the Minister concludes at 6.30 o'clock and Deputy Tierney gets five minutes and Deputy Coogan gets two minutes, Deputy MacEoin could have the remainder.
What time will the debate on the motion conclude?
We had only 53 minutes from the time it started at 6 o'clock.
The debate did not start until 7.10 on the previous night.
Three hours is all that is allowed.
We are wasting time now. Let the Minister say his say and stop at 6.30 o'clock.
I have mentioned the particular question of the investigation because of an improper remark made by Deputy Tully last night that while the Minister himself was a very fine fellow there was some devil's advocate behind him who had all the power. By implication that is an attack on the Minister himself and not on the officials. I want to tell Deputy Tully that the Department of Defence is in an indivisible authority. For the time being I am at the head of it and here in Dáil Éireann the responsibility for what anyone may think are its shortcomings rests on me and not on any official.
There was a great deal of discussion on the subject of medals, which is not included in the motion at all. The difficulties about medals are very great indeed. Most of the failures to which Deputies have referred in relation to applications for medals can be traced to the verification officers. If you write to the friends of a man who applies for a medal and you get no reply, what conclusion can you come to but that there was a doubt in the minds of the people who got the verification forms as to the merits of the case?
In the case to which I referred, there was adequate verification.
The Minister is not right in what he said. The Military Service Pensions Act includes medals.
Deputy Tully coupled with his remarks an incident which I thought I dealt with satisfactorily here before. That is the allegation that a verification officer from County Meath was summarily ordered out of the Department of Defence. It so happens that the person he met on that particular occasion is incapable of being rude to anybody. In any event, the incident did not happen in the way represented, and I have assured the man in question that he is welcome to come to the Department at any time he has any business there. I thought that I had disposed of the matter satisfactorily already and I regret that Deputy Tully thought fit to bring it up again.
The person concerned insists that it did happen. I am glad of the offer which I did not hear the Minister make on the previous occasion.
I assure the man in question that he is welcome to come to the Department at any time. Now, the position is that 43,000 medals without bar have been issued and that less than 5,000 have been refused. That should indicate that wherever there is any doubt the applicant gets the benefit of it. If there is an appeal, the senior officer dealing with the case submits it to the head of the Department and if he is not satisfied he sends it to the Minister. We do not go very far astray. I want to tell Deputy Tully that, in the interest of the Old IRA, I am anxious that anybody who was not a member will not get recognition.
We are as anxious as the Minister is but we do not want people who are entitled to medals to be thrown out.
I hope Deputy Tully is satisfied that his suspicions are not well-founded. There is no spleen and there could not be any spleen on the part of the officials against any applicant because of the sieve through which the applications have to go. I would prefer that specific cases would be brought to my personal attention and I must agree that that is being done by some Deputies. I think that is more satisfactory than any general reopening of legislation. It is quite obvious from the speeches made last night that there is only a trickle of cases in which Deputies think justice is not being done. It would be most unreasonable to open the entire sluice gates again so that that trickle could get through.
The Minister did not say if he is accepting the motion.
I am not; I could not accept it.
It gives me pleasure to support Deputy MacEoin on behalf of the members of the Old IRA. I have a similar motion on the Order Paper but it is very far down the list. I feel those people have got a very raw deal. I must say in fairness to the Minister that as far as I can judge if he had been Minister for Defence prior to this, he would have seen that these people received a fair deal.
That is a left-handed compliment.
Left or right, I believe the Minister has an interest in this group but that the people with whom he is associating in the Cabinet have none whatever. The Minister is not getting the finance to meet the needs of these people to whom Deputy MacEoin and other speakers have referred. The Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924 and 1934 were aimed at rewarding those who fought in the cause of freedom and gave the most important years of their lives to that cause. Many of them suffered loss of employment or impairment of health. Almost 40 years afterwards, it is a very sad state of affairs for any Deputy, on any side of the House, to have to get up and fight a Minister or a Department on this issue to ensure that we will recognise the old soldier who made this House possible.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the special allowance grievances that we have in the country. The Minister has them in his own county. We have people who rendered years of good service to their country. I have one case in mind—I shall mention no names—of a man who was in the column during the Tan days. He was on hunger strike during the Tan times and in the Civil War, he was on the Republican side. He was also interned. That man got a special allowance to bring up his small pension but because he made an error in regard to a small number of stock on his small farm, not alone did he lose his special allowance but the Minister's Department deprived him of his pension until the full amount has been paid back. As far as I can recollect, he got the first small part of his pension in Christmas week. That was a lovely salute from a Republican Government to a Republican soldier of Ireland.
We have Social Welfare officers coming down the country following complaints made by the Department, or perhaps made by someone else, and trying to find out whether the hens are laying on so many days of the week or the number of turkeys a man's wife is feeding for Christmas, or how many of the children are earning. The result is that the special allowance is cut down. We have the case of the old age pensioners who paid their contributions and received the increase from the Department of Social Welfare and the first week they drew the contributory old age pension, a similar amount was deducted from the special allowance. I do not think that is just. I think that the widows of old IRA men who have died because of their wounds, or from sickness attributable to their wounds, should be in full receipt of widows' pensions of a fairly decent amount.
Another point is that anyone who took the Republican side in 1922 or 1923 and who did not apply, as the Minister did not apply, until 1932 or 1933, have lost ten years of service and ten years' pension. Those people having observed the instruction issued to them, to keep on the Republican side and not apply for the pension, one would imagine that the Minister or his Government would have compensated them for the ten years. Whether it is within the scope of the motion or not, it is even reacting on Garda who carried out their instructions and did not join the Guards. They are now losing ten years' pension and service. Whether it is a left-handed or a right-handed compliment, I think the Minister is genuine in his attempt to help these people but the people in his Cabinet have no time for this group. I have great pleasure in supporting Deputy MacEoin.
I wish to support this motion. I think this amendment is overdue. I would refer the Minister to the cases I have drawn to his attention of widows whose husbands gave sterling service. We could say that the measure of freedom that we now enjoy was due to the work of those men. I say that, irrespective of what side they took in the Civil War. It has become a recognised fact that the Government have no time for the widows of these men. Recently on the Estimate for the Minister's Department, I brought to his attention the case of a widow whose husband had been crippled, his body riddled with the bullets of the Crown Forces and he carried one of those bullets in his body to the grave. The Minister has proved to be a great disappointment. He had the ball at his feet and he could and should have done something. Public opinion now is that the Fianna Fáil Government used many of these Old IRA men while they were alive and not content with that, went further and rattled their bones when it suited them to bolster the Party on every occasion that presented itself. Now they have turned their backs on the widows of these men. I gather from the Minister's attitude that he has no intention of making any change and I must conclude that he is going to be a great disappointment to many of these widows. We have forgotten them, just as we forgot the people who could die or freeze to death in the mountains of Wicklow and other parts of the country.
Deputy McLaughlin rose.
Deputy McLaughlin has already spoken.
I merely wished to say a few words.
The Deputy may not speak again. Deputy MacEoin, to conclude.
This motion is a considered motion and, while I was Minister for Defence, the Fianna Fáil Party pressed me to amend the Act in this particular respect. I undertook to do so. The principal ground on which the Minister last night refused to accept this motion, though he did not state it until this evening, was that the previous Government, of which I was a member, had not authorised the drafting of a Bill. In my opening remarks, I stated the circumstances in which I was unable to carry out the promise given to the Fianna Fáil Party: the then Government decided that no amendment of the Act would take place before the final report of the referee and board then sitting was made, but I was authorised to set up a committee to draft a Bill to meet the requirements. I did so. That Bill is there. It is true it did not get even a First Reading, but the Bill is there.
On the point with regard to repudiation, it was not I who was repudiated but Deputy Boland, as Minister for Defence. He came before the Federation of Old IRA at the change of Government and he said he would amend the Act on the lines I had suggested. The then chairman of the Federation would not allow me to speak because he said the Minister was going to amend the Act. I accepted that. The present Minister says he will not amend it.
The second ground for refusal is that amendment would cause a flood. The greater the injustice, the bigger the flood; the bigger the flood, the larger the number involved, and the bigger the number, the more important it is that justice should be done to those who have not yet got justice. It is true that some people got pensions who did not really deserve them. I will not go into specific cases. There were abuses as there will always be abuses under this type of legislation. There are abuses in relation to old age pensions. Abuses are discovered in time.
I want the Acts amended so that the Minister can investigate a claim if he is satisfied there are grounds to justify examination. I know that it will not be ten cases he will have to examine, nor even ten cases from every Deputy here. It will be hundreds of cases, and the only reason he will not do it is that the task would be too big. Deputy Gilbride says the Minister has statutory authority. Here is the Minister's answer to that: "The time limit for such a claim has long since expired." Where is the statutory power? The Minister has no power; he can do nothing. It is no use saying he can make regulations. He cannot.
With regard to the widows of those who had disability pensions, the Minister says there is no difficulty where tuberculosis is concerned, and he thinks something should be done. Is not the time to do it while the widow is still alive and while she can benefit by it? It will be no use doing something when she is dead. Time is fleeting. It would be a great relief to these widows if something were done. The Minister himself knows several cases.
I assert the Acts should be amended, the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1949, inclusive, and the Army Pensions Acts from 1916 to date. The Minister brought in in 1962, a provision in relation to the Congo; disability aggravated by service is admitted. Is it too much to ask that the soldiers who fought for this country, and not the Congo, should get the same treatment? Is it unreasonable?
The Minister spoke about the investigation officer where the special allowance is concerned. I challenge the Minister to say where there is a single officer in his Department with the same authority as the deciding officer has in regard to the old age pension. The latter can reject the assessment by the local Social Welfare officer. I know of an income of £20 being placed on five acres of land in Ballymore. It would not feed a snipe, but one little patch could produce perhaps half a ton of hay. The pension officer put that down at £1 per cock. I am not blaming him. He did not see the hay in cocks. He calculated so many cocks out of the lumps he saw on the ground. If I went in to the officer in the Department, or even wrote him a letter giving him the facts, he would wipe that assessment out without batting an eyelid. No single officer in the Department of Defence could take the same step without the concurrence of the Minister. The Minister is a very busy man.
I am sorry the Minister has taken the line he has. I know that that line has not the support of at least 50 per cent. of his Party. This is the last time probably that I shall have an opportunity of fighting for the rights of my former colleagues, irrespective of what side they were on. It is a sad commentary that this appeal has to be made at this hour of our lives. Memorials will be put up when we are dead and gone. We do not want them. The memorial should be now. Those who have not got pensions and who believe they are entitled to them should at least know what they have to prove in order to establish their claims. But I do not think they should even have to do that. The records are there. Service can be decided from the records.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Belton, Jack.
- Browne, Michael.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Keeffe, James.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Ó Brian, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.