Such rewards are not at present necessary in the Army. The decision was taken by me some time ago.
Deputy Dowling referred to the practice which requires that exmembers of the Defence Forces overholding married quarters must vacate such quarters before being permitted to take up employment under my Department. This practice is very necessary and must continue. There is urgent need for the recovery of all overheld quarters in order to cater for the large numbers of married soldiers seeking accommodation, and everything possible has, therefore, to be done to secure surrender of quarters when due. We do not go to the extreme of evicting people where we can possibly avoid it.
Deputies Cosgrave, James Tully, Dowling and Booth commented on pensions and gratuities in relation to retired members of the Defence Forces. I should like to assure Deputy Cosgrave that the increases in Defence Force pensions have been on exactly the same basis as those granted to other sections of the public service. He suggested that Defence Force pensioners have been faring worse because they have no organisation to fight for them, but that is not so. Every time an increase is approved in public service pensions generally, that increase is given in all the pensions and allowances payable from the Vote for Army Pensions. The wider question of parity mentioned in the course of the debate is not within the control of the Minister for Defence; it is a matter for the Minister for Finance, and is applicable to all other Departments.
As regards gratuities, it has been pointed out time and again that only married officers get a gratuity in addition to pension; unmarried officers do not. Married soldiers receive a married pension in addition to basic pension; married officers do not get a married pension. Soldiers also get substantial pre-discharge leave. For married soldiers, the married pension is probably better in the long run in many cases than a gratuity would be, especially where they leave the Army when relatively young.
I understood Deputy Cosgrave to say that widows' pensions had not been increased since 1954. Such pensions have in fact been increased several times in recent years, the latest being 1965.
Deputy Esmonde spoke about medals and special allowances, and the difficulty experienced by applicants in establishing entitlement. His comments simply bore out what I said in my opening statement. It has been open to members of the Old IRA and kindred organisations for almost the last quarter of a century to apply for a Service Medal, but many have not bothered to do so until now, when they feel in need of a special allowance. And that is the dilemma. Because so many of the officers have died, it has become increasingly difficult for the Department to establish entitlement. Let me emphasise that it has not to be established that the applicant "saw action in the face of the enemy," to use the Deputy's words. All that has to be established is simple membership. There is no question of a tribunal. The Department approaches all surviving officers and examines all available records. What can be done if there are no surviving officers? How then is entitlement to be established?
The suggestion certainly cannot be accepted that many people entitled to medals are being refused them. There have been almost 47,000 awards of the Service (1917-21) Medal without Bar— the Medal awarded for ordinary membership—as against fewer than 7,000 refusals since the scheme started. It is surprising that the Deputy has known only one person to have been awarded a special allowance. For years past new special allowances have been awarded at an average rate of almost 1,200 a year and it would be surprising if a fair proportion of these have not found their way to Wexford.
Deputy O'Hara referred to the case of a person who gave service in 1916 and who is now in need. If the person did not apply for a military service pension while the machinery for the award of such pensions was in existence, I am sorry that there is nothing I can do now in that regard because the time limit has long since passed. The Deputy said that neither had the person applied for a medal. If he does so, it may well be possible to establish his entitlement and the facts of the case may then justify also the award of a special allowance.
Deputy James Tully raised a question in connection with the Cumann na mBan in the Athboy area which is in my own constituency. Deputy Tully made it quite clear he was not casting any blame or reflection of myself in this matter. I am accepting that, of course. I want to give the Deputy the facts of the situation as I see them from the files of the Department. I was not Minister for Defence at the time the applications were made. No membership roll was furnished to the Referee for the purposes of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, so that, within the approved system of investigation, there was no positive evidence of the existence of a branch in Athboy; that is as far as the Department was concerned. As a result, some applications from the area for the Service (1917-21) Medal without Bar were refused. At that point of time, a membership roll was complied and supplied to the Department but the roll was not acceptable within the approved scheme of investigation. Later it was discovered that there was a lady who had been awarded a military service pension in respect of service in Athboy Cumann na mBan. This provided prima facie evidence of the existence of a branch in Athboy and the cases already refused were, therefore, reviewed and the medal awarded. There was no question, however, of a roll having been lost or mislaid and subsequently found.
