This appears to be an extension of the arrangement made last year whereby widows of certain civil servants were granted a pension equal to half their husband's pension with effect from 1st October, 1970. The date given in this Bill is 1st October, 1971. Why was no arrangement made to have this pension effective from 1st October, 1970, bringing both classes into line? Why, at the worst, could it not have operated from April, 1971, instead of October, 1971? It appears that the idea was to let it run as far as it possibly could.
While some of the newspapers made a joke of the fact that the Bill included widows of Connaught Rangers—the suggestion being that they were all dead—some of them are not dead and it is only right that they be included. As Deputy Clinton has pointed out, the amount appears very small. I know the standing joke that the number of pensioners and people in receipt of special allowances is growing each year but when one goes to the trouble of finding out the exact number one finds that the number is dwindling. In a few years time, unfortunately, most of the old veterans will have passed on and many of the widows will also have died. Although the amount given has been increased from time to time, the expenditure involved is a relatively small charge on the Exchequer and the time has come when something decent should be done for those who are still alive.
I know of a number of people who did not apply for pensions to which they were entitled because they were not in favour of being paid pensions for carrying out a service for their country. There were other people sufficiently well-off not to need such pensions—subsequently some of them had to apply for a special allowance. Some of them did not apply nor were they granted pensions and when they died their widows were left in poor circumstances. It is a pity that the section of the Bill is worded as it is because, according to the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill, these people could have been included. The Bill itself, which is worded differently, would exclude them.
The explanatory memorandum states:
The object of the Bill is to provide allowances for the widows of military service pensioners and Connaught Rangers service pensioners, as announced in the Budget Statement on 28th April, 1971.
Section 1
Provides—
(a) for the grant to the widow (provided she has not remarried) of an allowance equal to one half of the annual rate of pension payable to her husband on the 1st October, 1971, or which would be payable to him if he were alive on that date, subject to a minimum allowance of £52.20 a year;
However, the Bill states:
The Minister may grant to the widow (provided she has not remarried) of a person who was granted a pension under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924 ... an allowance...
In fact, it precludes those widows whose husbands qualified for pensions but did not apply for the pensions, for one reason or another. I think this provision is a mistake and I would ask the Minister to look into the matter and see if it can be changed.
Although there are people who did not apply for pensions, there are others who applied but did not receive pensions. Among the people who are dying are the certifying officers and it is impossible for the applicants to qualify even for a special allowance because the people who would have certified for them have died. I think the usual procedure is that letters are sent to people asking if they are prepared to certify and, if they do not reply, it is assumed that they are giving the charity of their silence to an application made in error or in the wrong. However, in most cases the reason the letter has not been answered is that the certifying officer has died.
The people receiving special allowances should be included because many of them qualified not because of the fact that they were not entitled to the pension but due to the fact that they applied very late and that certain verifications required were not forthcoming at the time. They should be entitled to the travel allowance or any other concessions given with the pensions. If an Old IRA man has got this concession for himself, it is rather mean that when he dies this facility is not given to his widow. I will not be an ogre and accuse the Minister of wanting to deprive these people of something to which they are entitled; he is a reasonable man and I am sure he is as anxious as I am that this should be done. I am aware that some people claim all the Old IRA men are in Cork but I do not agree with this. However, there are quite a number of them in that county and, if for no other reason than that they are his constituents, the Minister must do something about the matter.
Unfortunately, many people do not know what they are entitled to. From the two letters Deputy Clinton read, it is obvious that some people go to the trouble of reading the newspapers. However, most people misinterpret what is intended, in the same way that today a Deputy thought that deserted wives will get £7 a week from the State. If a Member of this House makes that mistake it is not surprising that those outside it should make a similar kind of mistake.
None of us will oppose or hold up this short Bill. However, the Minister should not try to get all Stages today but he should have a look at it in the light of the contributions now made. We would be prepared to accept short amendments tomorrow or later in the week for the purpose of getting an amended Bill which would be of some use. This is a proposal for a slight improvement for the widows of Old IRA men and I suggest it could be improved considerably if the Minister and his advisers reconsidered the matter. These few items will make all the difference when the legislation is enacted.