Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 1966

Vol. 220 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Military Service Pensions.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

In view of the fact that a large number of military service pensioners, who played a large part in the foundation of the State, receive exceedingly small pensions which are quite inadequate to meet the present cost of living, and in view of the fact that with the passing of time these pensioners are both decreasing in numbers and advancing in age, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the past services of these people should be more generously recognised and calls on the Government both to increase the pensions paid to them and, in particular, to ensure that when such pensioners receive any increase in social welfare payments their pensions are not reduced by a corresponding amount.

—(Deputy Kyne).

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I rise to support this motion which calls for better treatment for military service pensioners. There are a number of pensions covered by the motion. In the first place, there are Army service pensions. I understand that these pensions are very small. The Minister said that the vast majority of these pensions are less than £100 a year. I think that is taking an over-favourable view from the point of view of the State. The vast majority of these pensions are probably in the neighbourhood of £20 a year.

The next category covered by the motion is disability pensions, that is, pensions payable in respect of a wound received or a disease contracted on active service. These pensions are also fairly small. As far as I know, they are not subject to a means test.

The category of pension or allowance with which I want particularly to deal here this evening is the special allowance because the special allowance is an allowance made to a man who has a medal with bar, proving that he gave active service to his country when that service was badly needed. It is an allowance to a man who is not able to support himself, who has not sufficient of this world's goods to keep body and soul together. This category of persons is being very badly treated.

Irrespective of whether we have a shortage of money or a credit squeeze at the moment, I suggest to the Government and to the Minister that this is something that cannot be put off, because we are dealing with men who are growing old, who, according to the ordinary laws of nature, cannot hope to have very much further time to live. If we are going to treat them properly, we will have to treat them properly now or not at all.

I will give an example of the means test applied in the case of a special allowance to a man and his wife under 70 years of age. If the income of that man and his wife amounts to £172 a year, he gets nothing. He is deemed to be able, if not to live in comfort, to make ends meet on £172 a year because, if this special allowance means anything or is calculated to do anything it must be of such amount as to enable a man to make ends meet, to keep body and soul together, to provide him with food, housing, clothing and fuel. We are saying here in so many words that £172 a year is sufficient to keep a man and his wife in frugal comfort. I cannot accept that and I do not think the Government accept it.

We have at the present time in force here a workmen's compensation code, which we will be discussing later, under which a single man who is out of work is entitled to £4 10.0 per week but the Government accept now that that is not sufficient to keep that man and they propose, and rightly propose, in a Bill which is before the Oireachtas at the moment, to increase the allowance of that single man to £5 15.0 a week, and, indeed, under the present workmen's compensation code implemented by the Social Welfare Acts in force at the moment an injured workman who is married gets between £6 and £7 a week. Yet, in connection with the special allowance, we say that a married man and his wife are able to live on £172 a year. We should be decent to these people now because, as I have said, it will be too late in the future.

While one does not like to introduce unduly into this debate the fact that we are this year celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Rising of 1916, it would be a shame, I think, and quite out of order to forget about it. In this golden anniversary year, we shall have many celebrations at county and provincial level. We will have special medals struck. I am in complete agreement with all that; it is fitting that we should mark the Golden Jubilee of 1916 in a fitting way and I cannot think of any better way, any more Christian and humane way, to mark that event than by doing the right and decent thing by those who fought in that period, who made this golden anniversary possible, and who are now in such a financial position that they cannot provide shelter for themselves, feed themselves and clothe themselves. By accepting this motion, we would mark this event in a fitting way.

We should accept the motion and increase the figure for a married man to at least £6 per week. Anyone who says that a married man can survive on less than £6 a week is not facing realities. It may be said that these people have other incomes or benefits. I give to this the interpretation that will be given to it by the civil servants; it means the ceiling for a married couple. If my reading of the regulations is correct, it seems rather strange that a single man is allowed £146 a year, whereas a married man is allowed only £172 per year. It is difficult to understand that figure. It does not seem anything like adequate provision. There is a difference of something in the region of £30 as between the two. I do not propose to take up any more of the time allocated to this debate but I appeal to the Minister and to the Government, now that they have got timely notice before the Budget, to do the decent thing, the honourable and the noble thing, by these people, who served the country well in the past and who have now fallen on lean times.

Mr. Coughlan

We put down this motion because our republican instinct told us in no uncertain manner how appalling has been the treatment meted out to those who made it possible for us to sit here this afternoon. Deputy Kyne and Deputy Tierney have already instanced many cases of hardship. I should like to stress two points in particular: one is the screening the Minister is presently carrying out in connection with medals. There is now a fresh investigation in certain cases to discover whether they were duly awarded or not. That is causing great concern, particularly in the republican area from which I come. Secondly, it is a disgraceful state of affairs that a man in receipt of a meagre pittance in return for the services he gave to the country is not allowed any funeral grant or expenses. The least that could be done is to grant a certain sum towards funeral expenses.

Last night the Minister dealt with the position in relation to the Army as it is now constituted. He dealt with the pensions allocated. I have some remarks to make now with regard to what the Minister said last night.

Mr. Hilliard

That is the present permanent Army?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Mr. Hilliard

I did not mention that at all. I was not speaking about the present permanent Defence Forces at all. The motion deals with military service pensions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The position of the present Army does not arise at all on this motion.

Mr. Coughlan

I understood the Minister to quote retiring pensions.

Mr. Hilliard

No. I dealt only with pensions in the case of the organisations named in the Acts. This has nothing to do with the permanent Defence Forces. I am sorry if the Deputy misinterpreted what I said.

Mr. Coughlan

There is some misinterpretation somewhere.

Mr. Hilliard

I do not know where it came from.

Mr. Coughlan

I had certain facts to put before the Minister with regard to conditions.

An Ceann Comhairle

They would not arise relevantly on this motion.

Mr. Coughlan

We will have another day. I came prepared more or less to deal with conditions in the Army. However, I appeal to the Minister to accept this motion. This being the Golden Jubilee of the Rising, it is only right that some special grant or gratuity should be given in recognition of the services rendered by these men. Most of the recognitions in the past ten or 15 years were given on political grounds and as a result of political references. Genuine cases were turned down. There was a general handout of medals—in one case a person who was a child of six in 1916 was given a medal. Now the Minister realises mistakes were made and some were unduly awarded. People are being notified, particularly those who have applied for special allowances, that their cases are being investigated to discover whether or not the medals were duly awarded.

That is a disgraceful way to treat people. It is a miserable approach remembering the services these men gave, the chances they took, and the dangers they faced. All these things should be recognised in a fitting way. Economies are being made, here, there and everywhere, we are told. Even games in the Army are being discontinued on the ground of economy. Be that as it may, the economic razor should not be used on these unfortunate men. We on the Labour benches would appeal to the Minister to make a special review of the cases of those pensioners in order to bring their pensions into line with the cost of living. The £1 they were receiving 20 or 30 years ago is hardly worth half-a-crown today. We have tabled this motion in order to appeal on behalf of those who are not in a position to speak for themselves.

Mr. Gilbride

As one of the men involved, I would be very slow to believe that, in the year 1966, when we hear so much about celebrating the Golden Jubilee of Easter Week, anyone would attempt to play politics in connection with the Old IRA. Let us examine this motion, which reads:

In view of the fact that a large number of military service pensioners, who played a large part in the foundation of the State, receive exceedingly small pensions which are quite inadequate to meet the present cost of living, and in view of the fact that with the passing of time these pensioners are both decreasing in numbers and advancing in age, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the past services of these people should be more generously recognised and calls on the Government both to increase the pensions paid to them and, in particular, to ensure that when such pensioners receive any increase in social welfare payments their pensions are not reduced by a corresponding amount.

Everyone here knows that the date for applications for pensions had expired and expired a long time ago, until the present Government at some period reopened the matter and set a new date. Deputy Coughlan said that politics entered into the obtaining of these medals. Up until 1934 only one side of this House qualified for a pension. Only those who belonged to the National Army got a pension. It was only under the 1934 Bill that everyone who served in the Old IRA became entitled to a pension. Anyone who wants to talk about playing politics would want to examine that side of the question.

The granting of medals ceased at a certain date, and no special allowance was paid to the holder of a medal unless it was awarded previous to 1932. When I came into this House—I think it was in 1950—a few of my comrades and I brought in a motion asking that the holding of a medal, no matter when awarded, would make an applicant eligible for the special allowance. In 1950, the former Deputy MacEoin, as Minister for Defence, accepted that motion, but he did nothing about it for the remaining years he was in power. It was only when the late Oscar Traynor became Minister for Defence in 1954 that that motion was implemented, and all medal holders became eligible for the allowance.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They are again subject to checking now.

Mr. Gilbride

I shall deal with that. They are subject to checking because at certain periods medals were handed out at three-halfpence a dozen because they were of no value.

Mr. Coughlan

Who did it?

Mr. Gilbride

The Deputy should ask some of his comrades.

Mr. Coughlan

If the Deputy comes down to Limerick, I can give him all the information he wants.

Mr. James Tully

One of Deputy Gilbride's comrades lent his medal to a fellow in order to enable him to get a postman's job. I can give the Deputy particulars of that.

Mr. Gilbride

I did not interrupt the Deputy. I want to get at the true position, and I do not want anyone to run away with the idea that we are opposed to Old IRA men getting pensions or increases in pensions. Any increases given—and there were seven increases given since 1953—were given by this Government. During the first term of Cumann na nGaedheal Government and during the two terms of Coalition Government, how many increases were given? I will let the Deputies opposite answer that themselves. Neither the pension nor the special allowance was given as a means of livelihood. The pension was given for services rendered to the State.

Mr. Coughlan

To get votes.

Mr. Gilbride

It was given in 1924 to get votes, admittedly, but in 1934 it was given to everyone, irrespective of the side on which he served. I got it for National Army men who were members of the Old IRA but who were turned down by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government because they would not go out and canvass for that Party's candidates. That is something which it is no harm for people to know.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Does the Deputy think the special allowance is adequate?

Mr. Gilbride

Neither the pension nor the special allowance is adequate but it was never intended as a sole means of livelihood, and when Deputy Fitzpatrick talks about decency, let him remember that before this Government came in, there was no one on this side of the House getting anything.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Does the Deputy think a man and his wife can live on £172 a year?

Mr. Gilbride

I have answered that question, but if Deputy Fitzpatrick were here, they would not be getting anything. They come here in 1966 trying to fool the people and to give them the impression: "We are——"

Mr. Davern

The new patriots.

Mr. Gilbride

Yes, the new patriots. I have a medal myself and I am in receipt of a pension. I have been dealing with this matter since I came into this House on behalf of people in my own county and all over Ireland. I know that they know who has treated them right and who has treated them wrong, and let no one be under any illusion about that. I back the Minister in rejecting this motion because it was introduced for the purpose of playing politics with the Old IRA, and for no other reason.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I shall not delay the House but I wish to support this motion, which is only one of many to come before us here. I recall General MacEoin two years ago making a final plea on behalf of his former comrades. A note of political acrimony has been introduced into this debate, and I deplore it. On this question of the special allowance and on the means test, in particular, I have had experience of helping to fight the case of a number of applicants, and let me say in fairness to the Minister, that I found him most cooperative at all times. Of course he is hamstrung by rules and regulations, and this motion should help us to focus attention on the situation, particularly in regard to the means test. This figure of £172 is completely ridiculous. In view of the fact that the ranks of these veterans are being reduced every day, we should be a little more generous, particularly in this year when we celebrate the anniversary of 1916.

There is a considerable amount of red tape involved and the means test is being applied far to rigidly. In the case of a man with perhaps a cow or two, or a small shop, very often the assessing of his means is a matter of guesswork. Very often applicants are shot down because they have a few pounds above the limit. The whole thing needs to be looked at in an entirely new light. Certainly there is a very strong case for raising the ceiling of £172. I appeal to the Minister, knowing as I do his genuine interest in his former comrades, to have something tangible done at this late stage to show those men that we of a younger generation appreciate what they did and are prepared to do what we can to show practical recognition of their service.

Mr. Treacy

In supporting this motion, I would first of all have regard to the remarks made by Deputy Gilbride when he unfairly suggested that there was a political aspect to the sponsoring of this motion by the Labour Party. That was an unwarranted allegation and wholly unjustified when one considers that this Party, over a long number of years, have consistently brought to the notice of various Governments the unfairness and inadequacy of the pensions awarded to this important category of people and also when one has regard to the sponsors, and in particular to Deputy Tierney who has been an outstanding advocate of the Old IRA in this House and has to his credit very many motions couched in similar terms to improve the lot of the comrades with whom he served in other days. For any Deputy to imply that this was playing politics with the Old IRA is to imply something which, as far as Deputy Tierney, or any member of his Party, is concerned is patently unfair and should be withdrawn. It is a reflection on the integrity, character and ability of a soldier of Ireland, in the person of Deputy Tierney.

I am not concerned with the politics involved, although I do know, and it is a very well-known fact, that this matter has been the plaything of politics for a long number of years. The allocation of pensions, medals and so on, has been riddled with politics. This has been borne home to us in recent months by the knowledge that many service medals awarded for alleged service during the War of Independence have been withdrawn on the ground that they had been wrongly awarded in the first instance. That is a clear indication that there was something wrong in the Department of Defence when such a thing could happen. My primary concern is with the odious means test which the Minister's Department applies when determining who is entitled to a pension and to what amount he or she may be entitled. I do not think we have a more rigid or more rigorous means test than that applied to those who apply for Old IRA special allowances. The means test applied under the social welfare code is bad enough, but this is infinitely worse.

I wonder is the Minister aware that many recipients of Old IRA special allowances have had their pensions reduced within the past few weeks in consequence of getting a 10/- increase in their social welfare benefits? I have before me an award certificate in respect of a man in my constituency who enjoyed an Old IRA special allowance of £68 per year. On 20th December, 1965, this man was informed—it was a nice Christmas box to get from the Minister's Department —that as and from the beginning of January, 1966, his Old IRA special allowance would be reduced from £68 per year to £55. In the column headed "Remarks", it is stated: "The decrease in your special allowance from the 3/1/66 is due to the increase in your disability benefit as and from that date." It would be enlightening to know how many unfortunate Old IRA men have been thus affected.

Mark you, the people for whom I speak in this instance are not the people who enjoy pensions as such; they are that unfortunate, rather destitute element of the Old IRA whose standard of living must well be near subsistence level because to secure a pension of this kind, one must be extremely badly off. The home assistance personnel would not apply a more rigid means test. These people are extremely badly off but because the Social Welfare Department increased their disability allowance, these unfortunate men have suffered a reduction in their special allowance. What a dishonour to confer on them at the commencement of the Golden Jubilee of 1916.

When this House passed the increases to the social welfare beneficiaries, the Minister for Social Welfare was good enough to indicate to the many Deputies who queried him on the matter that it was not his wish that any recipient of these benefits would suffer a reduction in benefits from any other source. We are concerned that home assistance officers might, as they did in the past, reduce home assistance recipients by an amount corresponding to the increase given in Social Welfare benefits. I think it is true to say that it is the confirmed opinion of this House, and of the Social Welfare Department, that it was never the intention in granting these increases in social welfare benefits that they should be curtailed by any other device whatever. It is all the more regrettable and all the more scandalous that the reduction should have taken place in the Department of Defence at a time when we are setting about celebrating 1916. This motion is timely and justified and I would appeal to the Minister to adopt a more humanitarian approach to the whole problem and to bring about a much needed modification in the means test and so ensure that these people receive something adequate.

I have mentioned the standard of living of the categories of persons in receipt of Old IRA special allowances. Their circumstances must be extremely bad before they can qualify under this rigid and disgraceful means test. I have had to bring to the notice of the Minister's predecessor the appalling conditions in which these people live. I have had to bring to his notice that a man who was believed to be a 1916 man was living in an outhouse in circumstances of utter destitution. Despite all the evidence and persuasion I could bring to bear on the Minister's Department, nothing tangible accrued from my representations in this sorry case.

Many of these Old IRA men are men to whom this country owes a deep debt of gratitude which we can never repay but which we should endeavour to repay while a few of them are still alive. Many of them are living in our county homes. Every country owes to its fighters for freedom the very best that it can confer upon them. Many people who were entitled to Old IRA pensions did not apply for them at all. These are the people who are most genuinely entitled to them but they did not apply for them because they went out to fight for the freedom of their country from patriotic motives and not in any hope of monetary gain. Many of them applied for pensions because they needed the money and many more applied, chancing their arms, and got away with it.

When one compares the treatment given by other countries to their patriots with the treatment which our country metes out to our patriots, one must feel heartily ashamed. I instance the care which the British Legion takes of the people who played their part in empire building and in the wars in which Britain was involved. That puts our country to shame. We can learn much from the manner in which the British Legion takes care of the British soldiers and their wives who may have fallen into economic distress of any kind.

It is in that frame of mind that I rise to support this motion in the Labour Party interests and in the interests of all these people to whom we owe such a great deal. The Minister has a unique opportunity to do honour to these people in this year of 1966, the 50th anniversary of the Rising. There are so few of them left that it would be to our eternal disgrace if we did not do something for them.

Mr. Hilliard

There are over 64,000 medals in the country.

Mr. Treacy

If you keep withdrawing the medals which were awarded to them, there will not be so many left.

Mr. Hilliard

The percentage of withdrawals is very small.

Mr. Kyne

There are not 64,000 people drawing pensions.

Mr. Hilliard

There were over 64,000 people holding medals, each one, while alive, being a potential applicant for a special allowance.

Mr. Treacy

It would be a big assumption on the part of the Minister that every person awarded a medal is a potential applicant for an allowance.

Mr. Hilliard

Each one can apply.

Mr. Treacy

With the means test which the Department applies, they would have to be almost destitute to get an allowance.

Mr. Hilliard

There are over 8,000 in receipt of allowances at the moment. The average payment is £84 a year.

Mr. James Tully

You will do a lot on that.

Mr. Coughlan

How many have been turned down?

Mr. Treacy

I am concerned about this question of the withdrawal of medals. However surreptitiously a man may have got a medal, the Minister should be very careful before a medal is withdrawn or dishonoured in any way. There has come to my knowledge the case of a man who gave outstanding service in the War of Independence and whose family were known to have sacrificed their all. He was in England for a number of years and fell into difficult circumstances. His brother applied for a pension on his behalf and a service medal had been previously awarded to him. The reply from the Department was that he was not entitled to a pension or an Old IRA special allowance because the medal was now being withdrawn.

That medal was properly issued and the bad news came to that household at the time when the applicant had passed away. The family resented it deeply. They resented the inference that this patriot was not worthy of the service medal. It was a terrible insult added to great injury. I would appeal to the Minister, however difficult the times may be, not to be influenced by the credit squeeze or by a shortage of money and not to allow his Department to make use of the gimmick of refusing or withdrawing service medals for the purpose of nullifying applications for these allowances.

Mr. Davern

I must refer to a remark made by Deputy Coughlan. It reveals a state of affairs that is alarming in the extreme, and if Deputy Coughlan is serious, he has a duty to this House and to every medal holder to give particulars of the case he mentioned. He mentioned that a young boy who was only six years of age in 1916 is now the holder of a 1916 medal. This is something that would be a shame if it were true, for it brings into disrepute every 1916 medal in that district. In my own county not far from Cashel, there is a very limited number of people— not more than six—who are the proud holders of the 1916 medal. They, with rightful pride, are honoured to have that medal. The people in the locality claim a reflected share of the glory that is theirs. I would look askance at anyone who would tolerate the unjust holding of such a medal—a medal that should represent so much, especially in this year, that should be given with honour, received with honour, worn with honour and without any kind of surreptitious action on the part of the person who received it. It is obvious that a person only six years of age at the time could not qualify for it.

The granting of special allowances and pensions is a matter of deep concern to the Minister. He is a man who may be numbered among the freedom fighters and builders of this nation. To his credit, on every occasion when the opportunity presented itself, he gave support, both within and without this House, to the cause of his less fortunate comrades. It is disturbing to hear over 40 years after the main event that, instead of decreasing, the number is increasing. We are told there are 64,000 medal holders in the country. That must represent a challenge to the credulity of anyone. There must have been an invisible army somewhere. These medals were not granted at the whim of any Department: somebody verified for them. It is about these people I would complain the most. Any person who verified for another not entitled to the medal did, not alone himself, but his comrades a disservice and reduced the worth of the medal to a triviality. One might as well have a hurling medal.

Mr. James Tully

What is wrong with a hurling medal?

Mr. Davern

There should not be any comparison at all.

Mr. Spring

Poor John Doyle.

Mr. Davern

If the Labour Party are sincere in this—I know the movers of the motion are—and if the Minister accedes to their request and gives an increase in the pensions and special allowances, I hope they will have the moral rectitude to vote for the necessary taxation that must come in its wake. It is easy to cry "wolf" and run away but it takes courage to stand up afterwards and vote the wherewithal necessary to pay these increases. I deplore the action of those who call for these increases and pay tribute to the men concerned if they are not prepared later to show their sincerity with £ s. d. and vote for the necessary taxation.

I would appeal to the Minister, even though there must obviously be a number of people holding medals who are not entitled to them, for the sake of those who are, for the sake of those in the winter of their lives, who may find themselves in difficulties, financial or domestic, to be helpful as far as the limits of the Exchequer will allow. I, for one, will be prepared to vote for any increased taxation to enable the Minister to give these increases. It is wishful thinking to think we can demand things and not be willing to pay for them.

Recipients of social welfare payments, who are entitled to them because of their labour and contributions over the years, should not have their special allowances or any Old IRA pension taken into account in any means test. This has been the practice of the county manager of the local authority on which I serve. So far as means tests for hospitals and so on are concerned, he never takes into consideration Old IRA special allowances. That is to his credit. It is something that could well be followed by every local authority and every Department.

Mr. Ryan

For more reasons than one, we have reason to be grateful to the Tuairim organisation, who last week-end published a most interesting paper about our activities as well as the personnel of this House. One of the interesting things to which they drew public attention is that less than ten per cent of the Members of the present Dáil are people who were in a position to play any part in the fight for freedom. Therefore, I suppose, we in this Dáil can speak more objectively about Old IRA men than most Dála before us, which contained a larger percentage of people actively involved in the fight for freedom. We can also speak about the need for increasing the pensions and allowances to these brave people who sacrificed so much, without at the same time voting anything for our own immediate friends or for ourselves. Therefore, we should approach this problem in the detatched way the impartial voice of history will comment on it.

To learn that in this day and age— not in the autumn of their lives but in the winter of their lives—8,500 people who risked so much that we might be free are so close to destitution that they must receive a special allowance is something which ought to disturb our consciences. It must disturb us to realise that last year when the State, which has not a reputation for being generous decided that people on disability benefit and other social welfare allowances would be compensated to the extent of 10/- to meet the cost of living—that being the most the Government could give—and we voted for those increases, we at the same time ensured that no person in receipt of a special allowance would get any benefit whatever from that. That is in fact what happened.

Mr. Hilliard

That is not so.

Mr. Ryan

In reply to a Parliamentary Question which Deputy Pattison and I asked yesterday, the Minister said only half the disability benefit was taken into account.

Mr. Hilliard

That is right.

Mr. Ryan

It is difficult to reconcile this with the number of cases which have come to my notice of people who received an increase of 10/- a week in their disability benefit and, as a consequence, apparently, of that, their special allowance has been reduced also by 10/- a week.

Mr. Hilliard

Half of it is taken into account.

Mr. Ryan

It may well mean, applying the formula of which the Minister speaks, an increase in one benefit and a similar reduction in the other allowance, though it would not seem that that would be so.

Mr. Hilliard

No: they have more than they had previously.

Mr. Ryan

I am prepared to be generous and to make the Minister a present of 5/-, if that be it. Last year, when Dáil Éireann, in its wisdom, decided that people who were disabled should get an additional 10/- a week, I do not think Dáil Éireann had in mind that those people who were disabled and who had fought for their country, who had risked their lives and suffered for their country, would get only 5/-. If you are disabled now and have a record of national service, you will be worse off than if you are disabled and have not a national service record.

Many disabled people can have income from sources other than their special allowances or State sources. Such people can get the full increase, whenever social welfare benefits are increased, but that, apparently, is not to apply to the courageous people who sacrificed so much in the past. That seems an unforgivable attitude. I would petition the Minister, his colleagues in the Government and those behind him on the Fianna Fáil benches, to put an end to this miserable attitude towards these people who, through the operation of the natural law, are decreasing annually in number. If my recollections are correct, the effect of maintaining the special allowance for these people at the figure at which it was before their disability benefit increased would be only in the nature of £10,000 or £11,000 a year and every disabled soldier who sacrificed so much in the past that we might be free today should get 10/-, the same as every other disabled person. We have been told that figures many hundreds of times greater than that were "nugatory". Here, we have that very small figure which will diminish year in, year out. The Minister should prevail upon his colleagues in the Government to ensure that we put an end once and for all to this system which deprives disabled soldiers of the full benefit of national welfare increases.

The motion speaks for itself and it is well worded. It speaks of the exceptionally small pensions which are payable. It speaks also of the need not to deprive these people of the full increases in social welfare payments. These are simple statements. The request is simple—to grant a continuation. The welfare of these people will cost so little that we ought to undertake it without any further delay. In some respects, I feel that, even if the monetary allowances were doubled, it would not answer the needs of some of these old soldiers.

It is unfortunate that we have not had a more generous approach to these people. It is unfortunate that we have not set up an institution to which they could go in the winter of their days when they have become disabled, where they could have their comforts and be in the company of people beside whom they had soldiered many years ago. They are the architects of all we now enjoy. They have given us the privilege and the opportunity to speak here in a free Parliament in a free country. It is imperative that we should acknowledge that debt to them now and not simply leave it to history to emblazon their names in letters of gold. That is no consolation to them now. Rather, we should make their life a little easier in the way they deserve to have it done by the State they have created.

Mr. H. Byrne

I merely rise to support the motion because I believe it is most meritorious and, of its nature, should command the support of every member of this House. On an issue of this kind, nobody should indulge in any bickering or try to make political capital. I was rather amused by Deputy Davern's suggestion that if we were so determined in moving this motion, we should have been just as determined that the necessary money would be available to implement the motion, should it be passed. Deputy Davern would be very foolish to think that the motion would be put forward if we had other ideas about the financial commitments involved. It would be better if he had avoided that line of argument. Whatever increase may be given should commend itself to all schools of thought up and down the land.

Over the years, recommendations of this kind have been coming before the House but no year would be as appropriate as this year, which marks the golden jubilee of the 1916 Rising, in which to give vent to the feelings of the members of this House to improve the lot of the people concerned. I appeal to all sides of the House not to register any opposition whatever in this regard.

In the manner in which it has been put to the House by Deputy Kyne and Deputy Tierney, the motion clearly justifies itself. It is appalling that the pension of an Old IRA man in receipt of social welfare benefit should adversely be affected either by the one or the other. I appeal to the House to have very little bickering in this regard. Let us make one determined united effort to give proper recognition to those people as I believe it has been too long delayed.

Mr. Spring

I support the motion which is a very important one. Everything that can be said about it has been said. However, seeing that the Minister and the Government have decided not to accept it, I shall make one very important appeal to the Minister. The amount of pension being paid up and down the country, especially to those in receipt of special allowances, is very low indeed. I do not think there is any hope that, at the moment, the Minister or the Government will agree to increases of pensions. Some time ago, I suggested to the Department that they might at least consider paying these pensions once a fortnight. That is very important in the case of a person solely dependent on the pension. Many of these Old IRA men are solely dependent on their pensions, many of them are living alone, and so on. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider paying these pensions once a fortnight as it is a very important matter for the people involved. It would bring great relief to these pensioners.

Mr. James Tully

Let me begin by saying that this motion, which was so well put before the House yesterday evening by Deputy Kyne and Deputy Tierney, was not decided yesterday evening as was reported in one of this morning's papers. The motion did not fail yet and I hope the Fianna Fáil Party will have the good sense to see to it that it does not fail tonight.

I was very surprised to find somebody for whom I have very high regard, Deputy Gilbride, one of the very few Fianna Fáil Deputies who took part in the debate, making an attack on the motives for which the motion was put down. The motion was put down about six months ago and it is pure accident that it should be discussed now, but it is being discussed now and if it does embarrass the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party, that is their hard luck. It ill-behoves people like Deputy Gilbride, who has a good national record, to impugn the motives of the Labour Party. I may say to Deputy Davern, who appeared to worry as to whether we would be prepared to vote the money, that Labour stand by their principles now as they did in 1916 and that is more than can be said for a lot of people we hear talking about 1916 and what should be done to celebrate the 1916 Rising.

Mr. Davern

What about the press release that you would not vote for extra taxation for medical services?

Mr. Kyne

That is not true.

Mr. James Tully

If Deputy Davern cannot read the papers, that is not my fault or the fault of the Labour Party. If Deputy Davern needs somebody to read out every sentence and line and tell him what it means, he should go back to kindergarten.

Mr. Coughlan

Rockwell is disgraced.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy never went there.

Mr. James Tully

The whole attitude of the Government here, as far as I could see, was that this was something that they were not prepared to do. The Minister said so last night. Not being prepared to do it, they tried to cast a slur on it. Deputy Corry, fair enough, stood up for five minutes last night and, as he so often does, disagreed with the Government, and it is fair to say that if time had allowed, he would most certainly have been prepared to express the view that the motion was right. Time and Standing Orders prevented him from getting that far and he was not here to resume the debate this evening.

The motion has been dealt with by this Party and by the few Fine Gael Deputies who took part, on the basis that we are attempting to persuade the Government through this House that there are people who were responsible in a big way for the setting up of the State who will be hungry in the year 1966, when the celebrations are taking place in Dublin and elsewhere, when hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent in celebrating what they did.

Do not let anybody here tell me that that is not so because I can take the Minister—I know he is aware of it— or any other member of this House to people who, although they have a good national record and were active when they were needed, have not got what will keep body and soul together, and that through no fault of their own.

I had a letter some time ago from a lady resident in Northern Ireland who pointed out to me that her husband who, she said, did not take part in any patriotic activity, and who was ill in the North, was receiving a very good allowance from the Northern Ireland Parliament through social welfare and also had a helper supplied to look after him, whereas her brother who took an active part in the 1916 Rising, who lived in County Cavan and was in very poor health, had a very small special allowance and had nobody to look after him, with the result that he had to go into the local county home.

I have recently been in the county home in Meath and was appalled at the number of people there who I knew had a national record. I asked some of them why they had gone there and was told that they were unable to look after themselves at home that they were getting only a few shillings special allowance and that it was not enough to live on.

Somebody said here that the allowance is not supposed to be enough to live on. That is assuming that the people concerned have been insured workers entitled to sickness benefit through social welfare. Many of them were not insured workers. Many of them were small farmers or businessmen who had no stamps and who now have nothing but the special allowance.

The Minister's argument is that if an increase were to be granted to everybody who was a medal holder it would cost a colossal amount of money. I do not think the medal holders who own big stores in this city will ever dream of looking for a special allowance from the Minister. Good luck to those who were able to do so well. We treat very shabbily the unfortunates who were not able to do well and who are down on their luck.

On the question of examination of means, I brought to the attention of the Minister's predecessor the case of an unfortunate person in the town of Kells who was living on a special allowance. He never had enough stamps to qualify him for any benefit. He was by way of being a tailor in his day and was trying to live on what he was getting as special allowance. Somebody with a long tongue and having nothing better to do brought to the notice of the Department in Coláiste Caoimhín that this poor man was getting an odd few shillings for stitching patches on people's clothes. The case was duly investigated. His special allowance was reduced. I took up the matter with Coláiste Caoimhín and with the Minister's predecessor. The allowance was restored. The person who investigated was not satisfied. Obviously, because he had a vindictive nature, he went around the town from house to house until he got sufficient evidence to go back to Coláiste Caoimhín to have the special allowance completely rescinded. Since that time, this man has been living on the charity of his neighbours. He has a record second to none in this State.

That is the sort of thing which Deputy Treacy was objecting to earlier and to which I want to object now. The maximum special allowance is small enough, without there being any question of looking for an excuse to take a few shillings away. Deputy Treacy quoted from a document to show that a special allowance had been reduced from £68 to £55. An amount of 5/- per week was taken from the special allowance because the person concerned got an extra 10/- per week in social welfare benefit from 1st January. So, while the Department of Social Welfare considered that an extra 10/- per week was necessary to keep body and soul together, the Minister's Department decided to take 5/- from the allowance. Apparently, they consider that 5/- is enough for such a man, although 10/- is required for everybody else.

I am sure that on reflection the Minister will agree that if agreement can be reached between the various organisations who want to be responsible for the 1916 Commemoration celebrations, a great deal of money will be spent this year. I do not know any better way in which we could spend money than in giving some of it to the poor people who so badly need it and who were, whether we like it or not, responsible for the fact that we are able to sit here as the Parliament of the nation.

The Minister made a comment which I do not think was fair. The Minister said that those who are in receipt of the higher pension or higher allowance would object if increases were granted to those on the lower level. That is an unfair statement. The Minister has absolutely no evidence to support it. We are all humane enough, I think, to realise that people in very straitened circumstances, people who need some help, people—let us face it —on the verge of starvation are entitled to a little more than they are getting. To suggest, as an excuse for not giving a little more, that it might make someone who already has a little more jealous because they were catching up is just a lot of cod.

The question of the number involved in the 1916-21 and 1922 period has been commented on. Someone said there are now more holding medals than there were ten years ago.

Mr. Hilliard

That is not so.

Mr. James Tully

I am only repeating what was said. Whether or not that is supposed to be a slur on those holding medals I do not know. Someone said that there must have been an invisible army. Of course there was an invisible army and, if there had not been, we would not be here now. It is wrong that those who were issued with medals 20 years ago should now be reinvestigated. Many of the certifying officers are now dead. The evidence is no longer available. Apparently, as an easy way out presumably, it has been found that the written evidence produced is not sufficient to certify those who are now being reinvestigated, although it did satisfy those who made the original investigation. Maybe, as Deputy Ryan said, it is another generation. Maybe they are people who were not involved. Maybe they are so young they feel that the people of 1916 onwards do not count. What happened does not matter. They have no feelings.

It is quite true to say that if someone has a medal and that medal is taken away, a horrible slur is cast upon that man and on his family. The Minister is aware of one case in my village. A man had a special allowance for a number of years. Investigations were carried out—at whose instigation I do not know—but the result was that the Minister decided not alone to take away the special allowance but to bring the man to court to recover the money he had got. I warned the Minister that that man was at death's door. In fact he died a few weeks after the decision was given. I hope those responsible for having the investigation carried out are satisfied with their good work.

The extraordinary thing about all this is that, when it comes to celebrating, to marching behind a band, waving a flag and talking about 1916, we are all prepared to join in. There is a certain amount of reflected glory. But when someone suggests that someone who was involved and is now down on his luck should get a few extra shillings to keep body and soul together, that is a cause of embarrassment. The Government should not be discommoded, particularly when there is a credit squeeze; those people should be able to carry on without a few extra shillings. Sweep them under the carpet—forget them; the sooner they die the better, because they are an embarrassment to the Government. It is just too bad that in 1966, with all our talk about celebrating the Rising, we have still got that type of mentality which thinks that, because a person is poor, he does not count. He counted when he was wanted and if the Government bring before this House proposals to increase substantially, as the motion suggests, the pension and special allowances paid to these people, it will get the unaminous support of all Deputies, despite what Deputy Davern said a moment ago. The number of people at present in receipt of special allowances is approximately 8,500. Between 1960 and today—the Minister will verify this—2,000 have died.

Mr. Hilliard

That is correct.

Mr. James Tully

On the law of averages, it is a matter of less than five years before all those at present drawing special allowances disappear.

Mr. Hilliard

That is not so. There are still applications coming in for medals and they will be applying for special allowances.

Mr. Coughlan

They are from the cumainn.

Mr. Hilliard

And the number is going up and the amount is going up.

Mr. James Tully

If the Minister pauses for one second's reflection, he will agree that those who are now applying for medals and for special allowances are those who, up to now, were able to keep their heads above water and wanted nothing from the State or anybody else.

Mr. Hilliard

That is correct.

Mr. James Tully

They are now down on their luck and they are applying for that to which they think they are entitled and which the State thinks is charity.

Mr. Hilliard

They will get it.

Mr. Coughlan

Giving a medal to a child of six years.

Mr. James Tully

I am glad Deputy Gilbride is back; I am surprised that a man for whom I have such great respect should say that this Party had an ulterior motive in putting down this motion. This motion has been on the Order Paper for six months and, when it was put down, there was no question of 1916 celebrations.

Reference was made to medals, who got them and who did not. I raised in this House a case in which a medal was lent to a man who had never got a medal, to enable him to get a postman's job. Lord rest him, the man is now dead. I raised that here. He was sitting on those benches, holding a parliamentary office. It is too bad that that sort of thing should be done but Deputy Gilbride can be assured that, if there is trickery, it happens on his side just as well as it might happen on this.

Mr. Gilbride

I am glad the Deputy mentioned that.

Mr. Hilliard

That could not happen.

Mr. James Tully

It did happen.

Mr. Hilliard

But he would have to be recorded in the Department.

Mr. James Tully

He was not. He walked in and produced his medal to the postmaster and got the job.

Mr. Hilliard

The postmaster would check.

Mr. James Tully

He did not check. I raised it with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and he admitted the man got the job on that basis. It is on the records.

Mr. Hilliard

The postmaster should have checked.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy Kyne asked for a free vote of the House. This is not a political matter. It affects those about whom we have been talking for the past hour and a half. If the Fianna Fáil Party are determined to beat the motion out of the House, and vote it down, even if it is defeated, I appeal to the Minister to go into this question of the reinvestigation of means. It saves the State £5 to £12 or £13 and it costs much more than that when the expenses of the investigating officer are calculated. I appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to put an end to that sort of thing. If he does so, he will be doing a darned good job and a great many people who are in receipt of special allowances will be prepared to thank him for it.

Mr. Hilliard

There is nothing in this motion except military service pensions.

Mr. Kyne

On that point, how can one relate that portion of the motion to military service pensions alone? Surely it is a reflection on the Chair that he should allow us and the Minister to discuss these other matters, if they were not covered by the motion?

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is just being smart.

Mr. Hilliard

I am not. I mentioned this in the course of my speech.

Mr. James Tully

But the Minister did not succeed in stopping the debate.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 59.

Tá.

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Byrne, Henry.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lyons, Michael D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• Norton, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.
• Tully, John.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Andrews, David.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerrv.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Don.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fahey, John.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
• Foley, Desmond.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lenihan, Patrick.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Moran, Michael.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kyne and James Tully; Níl: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.

Question declared lost.