Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Jul 1971

Vol. 255 No. 11

Army Pensions Bill, 1971: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill deals with the provision of allowances for the widows of pensioners under the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 and 1934, and service pensioners under the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Act, 1936, in accordance with the proposal in the 1971 Budget Statement. It will, I am sure, meet with the approval of the House. Section I of the Bill provides that the widow of a pensioner may be granted an allowance equal to one half of the pension payable to her husband on the 1st October, 1971, or which would be payable to him, if he were alive on that date. The minimum allowance will be £52.20 a year. A widow's allowance will commence on the 1st October, 1971, or the day following the death of her husband, whichever is the later.

Section 2 applies to the proposed widow's allowance a number of general provisions of the Army Pensions Acts, while section 3 exempts the allowance from certain restrictive provisions of the Army Pensions Act, 1953 and the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme, 1937. In accordance with the terms of section 13 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, a widow's allowance will be disregarded as means for purposes of the Social Welfare Acts.

I am very happy to recommend this Bill for the speedy and favourable consideration of the House. I will be glad to supply any further information which Deputies may require.

Any measure which proposes to improve the lot of old IRA veterans or of their widows is to be welcomed. My only regret is that the improvement is not much better than is provided for here. We have failed rather badly to give proper recognition or appreciation to those who fought and secured the freedom we enjoy today and who laid the foundations of this State. They have never been given the recognition that they and their wives and families deserve. It is only right that at this stage some recognition should be given to the widows of veterans. As we know only too well, it was the wives who suffered most at the time. Certainly they deserve as much reward as do the people who did the actual fighting. In many cases they suffered even more than their husbands who were on active service.

There is a fairly serious omission from the Bill and I would ask the Minister to give it very serious consideration before Committee Stage. Take the case of a man who, through patriotism, decided to forego his right to a pension and did not seek a pension and who may have died or who may have fallen into poor circumstances. His widow is now debarred from taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill to get half her husband's pension, as she would be entitled to if her husband had, in fact, applied for a pension. The same situation arises where a person applied late for a pension, who, perhaps, refused to apply for a pension for as long as possible and then found himself in very poor circumstances but then the date had passed by which he could qualify for a pension.

They get a special allowance but they do not come within the scope of the Bill as I read it. The Minister should have regard to the fact that these people through their patriotism, pride and self-denial have put their widows in the position that no matter how poor their circumstances they cannot apply for the very meagre pension now being offered. They are debarred from applying. There is serious injustice here; the Minister could not possibly make a case that such widows should be debarred. By their own sacrifice they have already saved the State a considerable sum to which they would have been entitled. By the exercise of patriotism which we must all admire they are now debarred in a rather deplorable way. In this regard it is no harm for the sake of the records of the House to quote a letter from such a person. She says:

I am writing to you in the hope that you may be able to help me in some way to obtain a pension as the widow of a pre-Truce IRA veteran. As you can see in the enclosed letter from the Department of Defence this has been refused.

This is obviously a case where the widow tried to be included and was refused. The letter goes on:

My husband was an officer in the pre-Truce IRA during the War of Independence, 1917-21. As such, he was awarded a Service Medal with Bar. He joined the National Army at its inception and resigned with the rank of captain in 1924. Although he was eligible for an IRA veteran's pension he never applied for this because he felt that he did not need the money. He died, however, in 1969 and, as his widow, I am living in extremely reduced circumstances. An IRA veteran's pension would mean a great deal to me financially. I cannot believe that it could be the intent of the Act to deny me my eligibility simply because my husband denied himself something to which he was certainly entitled. If so, it would certainly be very unjust.

That is a letter with which all of us would and should sympathise. It is typical of what I have been describing. There is another very obvious omission which should be rectified in the Bill. If the widows are to get half the pension surely the travel voucher should be included. I have another short letter on the travel voucher aspect which should also go on the records of the House. It says:

I read in Friday's paper that Mr. Colley was to introduce a short Bill to give half the husband's pension to all the widows of all the veterans who took part in the War of Independence. I would be very grateful to you if you would press the Minister to give the free travel card back to the widows at the same time. My husband was not dead a week when the Department wrote asking for its return. I think this is inhuman: the widow is in more need of it then. This happens to all widows of Old IRA men.

It is rather sad when for some years the unfortunate widow who endured as much as, or, perhaps, more than the man who was out fighting has enjoyed this travel voucher and a week after her husband dies, it is grabbed back. There cannot be so many of these people and we should be much more generous in our treatment of them.

I know very little about IRA pensions and I tried to get some background information. I rang the Department to ask if they could give me some information that would guide me in discussing this Bill. Surely this should be available to the Deputy who leads for the Opposition when the Minister sits down, having dealt with any Bill. I inquired, for instance, what was the Department's estimate of the number of widows of Old IRA men at present and also what was the level and range of pensions being paid at present and what would be the range into which the majority of these people would fall. I was told to ring back in a couple of hours and that they would have the information for me, but when I did ring I was told I could not get that sort of information; that the only person who could give it to me was the Minister and that the Department would not and could not supply it.

This is a very foolish approach to our work in this House. If we are to have sensible discussion and enlightened consideration of measures coming before the House it should not be too much to expect that this type of information would be supplied to a Deputy wishing to deal with a measure of this kind.

I do not want to prolong the discussion. This is a simple, straightforward measure setting out to give a widow a minimum of £1 a week. To many of the unfortunate widows this would be a considerable help in the future and something for which they will be extremely grateful. I was appalled to find that people who fought to free this country were on a level of pension below £1 a week. This is obvious from what the Minister said about making it a minimum of £1 a week. The Bill is inadequate but it is welcome.

I know money is not unlimited but this is one section that has not been fairly treated or recognised through the years and a substantial improvement is long overdue. This should be possible because their number is reducing fairly rapidly at present. Some small improvements were brought in recently but it is obvious from the level of pension indicated that these pensions are still extremely low. If the Minister can improve on what he has proposed, I exhort him to do so. Perhaps he is restricted by Budget provisions but I think it is sufficiently open to him to include what I have been seeking, a pension for the widows of those whose pride and patriotism prevented them from applying for a pension and of those who applied too late and got a special allowance. All such people in ordinary justice should be included in this Bill. Otherwise it is a hopeless measure and will only further sour people who believe they were badly treated in the past, people who deserve the best possible treatment we can give them.

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.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on this Bill and on the efficiency of his Department. This Bill is one of the most forward steps the Department have taken to recognise the genuine case of Old IRA men, with particular emphasis on the widows of Old IRA men. Last year I stated that widows and wives of Old IRA men should be given special consideration. Although we would all like the amount to be more, it is obvious, for practical reasons, it cannot be so.

Deputy Tully spoke about those who applied for pensions but did not receive them. I agree with him but I realise that if qualified people did not apply the records may not now be available to substantiate their claims or their widows' claims. Even if we are to treat these people in a special way—and they deserve this—it must be established they are genuine cases. When Deputy Tully spoke about the charity of their silence he was talking sensibly. Many of the men who came into the War of Independence later, or who took part during the Treaty, or after the Treaty, seem to think that they are entitled to the same as those who went in before the Treaty. Unfortunately, I understand from rumour that the number of Treaty medals about to be issued is 30,000. It is obvious that Deputy Tunney and others——

Deputy Tunney is not here.

Sorry. I keep thinking of my own side of the House. I am sure Deputy Tully will agree that some errors were made which were not the fault of the Department. They have to accept what the recognised officers of the local IRA say in each area. I agree with him that some of the widows whose husbands did tremendous work at that time, and who never bothered to apply for pensions— perhaps because they went to America, travelled abroad elsewhere—deserve consideration. As other Deputies have said nobody in this House objects to these pensions. Indeed, we all congratulate the Minister on taking a tremendous step forward in the recognition of genuine Old IRA men and their widows who may be living in bad circumstances today. Those widows might also be considered for special allowances if their finances are not what they should be. If they are in bad circumstances of any kind, perhaps the Minister would introduce some legislation which would provide for them. I do not know if this is possible. Perhaps the Minister will look into the matter.

I also think that the free travel concession should be made available to the widows. The fact that they are recognised for these pensions means that these are genuine cases. At present an Old IRA man is granted free travel but his wife can only avail of it if he is travelling with her. Many of these men must be at least 69 or 70 years of age, if not much older. Some of them are permanent invalids in hospitals or nursing homes around the country. It would be of great financial benefit to them if the Department would allow their wives to avail of free travel when travelling independently of them. This would reduce the financial hardship on them. We are now doing something more for Old IRA veterans. I want to congratulate the Minister and this Department on taking this very progressive step forward.

While I welcome this Bill and believe it is a step in the right direction, I certainly do not agree with Deputy Davern that it is a tremendous step forward. I think we will all agree that what some of these people are being paid is a mere pittance. These are the widows of the people who went out in the dark and evil days, the people who are responsible for the freedom and self-government we have here in Ireland. When they went out that time they were not seeking self-aggrandisement and they were not expecting pensions. They went out to free our country because they were genuine Irishmen. Many of them were only boys or youths but they were interested in the progress of our country and they were not satisfied with our history up to that time. They helped to lay the foundation for what each and every one of us has today. Were it not for those people we would not be sitting where we are sitting today. The State should be as generous as possible to their wives and widows.

I believe our priorities are wrong when we see people who were attached to semi-State bodies for a few years getting a golden handshake of £8,000, a pension of £3,000 and going into another job the day after at £1,000 a year, while others who went out and fought—not seeking self-aggrandisement and not looking for pensions— and who laid the foundation stone of the country—are getting only £1 a week. We should examine our consciences and, if we do, we must agree that we are not treating these people as they should be treated.

I think it was Deputy Davern who said we are issuing about 30,000 service medals this year. When I speak here I speak about the genuine IRA and the wives of the genuine IRA. Unfortunately, for political and other reasons, many people who were not entitled to pensions got pensions. Perhaps this is not the time to talk about that, but when I say I welcome this Bill I mean that I am in favour of it for the genuine IRA. If there are still 30,000 people alive and getting service medals, we must have had 60,000, 80,000 or 100,000 at that time. We would have beaten the German Empire if we had those numbers. Unfortunately we had not that many people at that time, and many people got pensions to which they were not entitled.

The genuine members of the IRA who went out and fought at that time are passing away. Their numbers are becoming fewer and fewer each year. While they were fighting their wives had to put up with many hardships. Indeed, the majority of those who were on the run gave great credit to those wives for their hospitality. They provided them with beds and fed them during those dark and evil days. We should be as generous as possible to them. I agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Clinton and Deputy Tully about men who would not accept pensions—and there are some in my own county who would tell you to this day that they would not take the Free Staters' shilling. Some of them are now poor and many of them are passing away. The Minister should provide pensions for their widows.

While I welcome this Bill I consider that it is inappropriate that any Minister should bring a Bill like this before the House without informing us, as requested, the total number of persons involved, the total number of widows involved, and the total number of pensioners involved, covered by the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 and 1934, and by the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Act, 1936. The Minister also has an obligation to tell us what the current pensions are. Legislation should not be brought before the House without giving us this elementary information and telling us the total cost involved. Nobody begrudges in the slightest the giving of State funds to persons under this legislation but as Deputies we are entitled to be given basic information. I trust that the Minister will now give us that information.

I am grateful to Deputies for their worthwhile contributions on this Bill. Indeed, it is gratifying that the House has always shown warm appreciation of the veterans of the War of Independence. Of course, this is as it should be. I should like to point out that, of themselves, these allowances should not be regarded as a means of providing a living for these widows; they are intended to supplement the incomes of widows and they will be a help in that way. They should be looked on primarily as a practical gesture in honour of those who rendered very valuable service in the War of Independence. I would not say that the allowances are in any way a measure of the value of these men's performance.

Mention was made of qualifiers for pensions. It was suggested that allowances should be given to the widows of those who did not have military service pensions but would ordinarily have qualified for them. The widow's allowance is being given on the basis of the husband's pension, as awarded and established by the Board of Assessors under the Military Service Pensions Act 1924 or by referee under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934. While there will be, perhaps, exceptions it is only reasonable to accept that there must be a statutory basis of award and it is on such a basis the allowances are being granted. As well as that, the Budget Statement made it abundantly clear that allowances were for the widows of military service pensioners only and the Bill before the House is putting into effect the provisions of the Budget.

Reference was made to the position of late applicants for military service pensions. In fact, considerable latitude was allowed to applicants. On many occasions the dates were extended to permit people who felt they had the qualification to apply. This continued until 1955 at which point further applications were not entertained. I think this was reasonable.

Deputy Tully referred to the difficulty in many cases of establishing a claim because the verifying officers might have died or left the country. I think he must have been referring there to special allowances because under the Military Service Pensions Acts of 1924 and 1934 those who felt they were qualified could apply for military service pensions and many of their colleagues and officers were at that point of time available and well.

What has that got to do with the fact that they could apply up to 1955?

It is only in recent years difficulty has been experienced in regard to verifying officers.

The Department had difficulty, too, in the early part of 1950.

I would say there is difficulty at the moment in relation to the award of medals because of the number of verifying officers who are deceased.

Medals are the only things being considered at the present time, but there was difficulty, too, towards the latter end of the applications. I think that is one of the reasons why it was scrapped.

I do not think it is really a valid point.

We will agree to differ on that.

Deputy Tully also suggested that the allowances should be made retrospective to 1st April or an earlier date. In this respect, the allowances follow the pattern of the social welfare benefits announced in the Budget.

Why should they?

The social welfare benefits come into effect on 1st October.

Would the Minister tell us why they should follow that pattern? Is there anything special about it?

There are always good reasons for fixing a starting date and it is, I think, reasonable that these should come into effect on 1st October. This is a very desirable and a very welcome scheme.

Deputies commented on the inadequacy of the awards. I could not agree more. I have the utmost regard and respect for these veterans and their dependants. I would like to give them very much more. However, these allowances are being granted at a time of financial stringency, at a time when many other interests are jostling one another in their demands on the public purse. That is a statement of fact.

The Minister said he had a difficulty in relation to those who were entitled to a pension but did not apply for it and this is based on the level of pension enjoyed by the husbands. Could he not have given a minimum until he made the investigation? Would that not overcome the difficulty?

That is not the point. The Budget provision was in respect of military service pensioners. We cannot vary that.

The Minister is making a mistake. He refers to the Budget position as if that were the law. This is the Bill. Last week something was provided which was not mentioned in the Budget at all.

There had to be a basis of assessment. There will always be exceptional cases and hardship cases. Generally speaking, this is generous in that there are no strings attached and the allowance will not be taken into account as means under the social welfare code. Even widows who are in receipt of military service pensions in their own right will get the full allowance. A niggardly attitude was not adopted.

Could the Minister give the House the information I sought from the Department and was refused—the number of widows involved and the level and range of IRA pensions generally?

I will be glad to inform the Deputy.

They will give the information to the Minister but they would not give it to Deputy Clinton.

The number of qualified widows must be an estimated figure but it will be something over 3,000. The allowances will range from £52.20 to £600 a year.

What is the existing range?

The lowest point will be £52.20 and going as high as £600.

That means their husbands are getting from £100 to £1,200.

In fact, there are IRA who are getting less than £52.20 at the moment.

That is correct.

Then the existing range is not from £52.20.

What will be given will range from £52.20 to £600. There are nominal pensions. Since 1959 Old IRA pensions have been increased by 116½ per cent.

That is not what I asked.

Some of the pensions are nominal because of the nature of the service.

Are there not pensions of 50p a week?

That is so. This scheme, however, is making reasonable provision for widows even though the husbands' pensions were at a very low level.

There will be difficulty in contacting those widows. Many of them have changed their addresses since their husbands died and I have known cases in which the Department of Defence has written back stating that widows are not entitled to a pension at all. Because they have changed their addresses there will be great difficulty in tracing some of them.

Obviously there will be difficulties in identifying widows in many cases, but we will advertise and check the Department's records to ensure nobody is omitted.

Will application forms be sent to the last known address?

We will see if that will be practicable.

Or will they have to apply?

We will advertise and invite applications. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure every qualified widow gets an allowance.

Might I ask the Minister if he considers £66 a year a nominal pension?

He considers half that a nominal pension.

There are Old IRA pensions lower than £66 a year.

We are having a Committee Stage discussion.

I have covered the main points in the debate so far.

I do not want to annoy the Minister but could he give the House the estimated total cost?

The estimated cost in the current year will be £92,000 and in a full financial year it will be approximately £220,000.

That was not the figure given in the Budget speech.

Perhaps Deputies could raise these matters when the Bill is in Committee; this is Second Reading.

The figures given were £110,000 and £280,000.

The £110,000 includes the cost of bringing military service pensions up to a minimum of £52.20 a year. I am well aware of the figures. The £92,000 is the correct figure in the current financial year.

With the number of these applications——

We cannot re-open the discussion.

We are next door neighbours——

That is all very well, but the Deputy could make his point in Committee.

Always relying on the Chair's goodwill——

The Chair has no goodwill in regard to these matters.

——I should like to point out to the Minister that with the number of IRA veterans who have died the Minister and his Department must be saving money. Surely the Minister and his Department could consider giving more money.

The Deputy could raise that on Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

In view of the Minister's refusal to improve the situation we shall have to put down an amendment and we would need at least a few days to do so.

This is a Money Bill. It deals with money and only the Minister may amend the Bill as far as money matters are concerned.

The Minister is not prepared to amend the Bill of his own volition; we are entitled to hold it up for a week to see if he would change his mind.

If we let the Bill through the House will the Minister give an assurance that he will do what he can between now and bringing it to the Seanad? We want to see the Bill through the House but we want to see justice done and justice certainly is not being done in this case.

The Chair does not know what Stage we are on.

It is not open to me to amend the qualifying conditions for an allowance laid down in the Budget Statement as being applicable to military service pensioners.

The Chair's concern at the moment is the next Stage of the Bill.

On a point of order, what is the sense of bringing a Bill before the House if the matter was decided in the Budget? The only reason for bringing it before the House in the form of a Bill is that it should be possible to amend it.

The Budget is only a Budget Statement. The Minister introduces legislation and the Dáil passes it.

I should have thought the House would accept this Bill with open arms; it makes a generous contribution.

It is completely unjust to a section of the widows of men who did their bit for this country.

Does the House wish to discuss this Bill in Committee now or postpone it?

In view of the fact that we cannot amend it because it is a Money Bill, there is no point in deferring it. It makes no difference. We shall be here next week and the week after I believe. As we cannot put in any amendments, I would suggest to Fine Gael that we let it go through now.

I am very disappointed with the Minister.

It is agreed to take the Bill in Committee.

Barr
Roinn