In reply to a question asked by Senator Kissane, the Minister mentioned persons who had already made applications, but whose applications were not successful and who are now satisfied that the applications did not contain all that they might have contained. Are they, now being aware of the circumstances of the decision and the method of arriving at the decision, entitled to make a new application, disregarding entirely the original application?
Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 to 4 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 to 8, inclusive, and the Title, put and agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."
I would like to say a few words in respect of the manner in which the Seanad has received this Bill. Naturally, it pleases me very much to find that the Seanad in general regards the Bill as a step forward, and I think it can be generally agreed that it is. Some Senators have expressed views that, perhaps, more could have been done for the lower-paid pensioners, but actually the basis upon which pensions are granted is that of service. There is no means that I know of by which pensions can be measured other than service, and if we are to depart from service in respect of making awards, then we are opening the door, and perhaps providing ourselves with quite an amount of difficulty in future times.
Therefore, when the government were examining this question, they decided that the fairest possible means by which these increases could be made would be to base them on those of the 1950 Act, which dealt with State pensions generally. It is true to say that some of the small pensioners, when granted increases, are not going to benefit to a very great extent, but I would like to point out to the House, and I think Senator Michael Hayes adverted to it, that these pensions were not awarded as or intended to be a means of subsistence. They are merely a reward for services given, and from that point of view I think that the rewards are fair. But, if any individual is in a situation in which he is dependent on a small pension, I would remind the House that there are behind the pensions a system of special allowances.
Special allowances were deliberately brought in as a result of certain cases brought to the attention of the Government as far back as 1945 or 1946, I think, where individual Old I.R.A. men were found to have passed to their reward in county homes or places like St. Kevin's in Dublin City. That was regarded by the Old I.R.A. as an insult to these men. The homes referred to provided, as far as I was aware, comfortable conditions, and there was no question of the "poorhouse system" attached to them and, generally speaking, there was nothing to be ashamed of. However, in view of all the points raised, the Government of that day decided to institute a system of special allowances, which exist at the present time.
I did not refer to the fact that there will be another Bill following this, an Army Pensions Bill which will deal with special allowances also from the point of view of increases. I deliberately refrained from referring to that fact, because when I did refer to it in the other House the result was a large volume of irrelevancy and Deputies spoke on the question of special allowances. When they were checked by the Chair they said that I was the person responsible for introducing the subject. I can speak about it here because it was referred to by certain Senators, and I want to say that these special allowances, which at the present time are £78 for a single man and £97 10s. for a married man, plus allowances for his children, will be increased in the forthcoming Bill. The smaller pensioner who might be regarded by some as being not mainly, but to a great extent, dependent on his pension, can, if his circumstances qualify him, be provided with assistance by way of a special allowance. From that point of view I do not think that Senators have anything to worry about.
Senator O'Donnell referred to the 1916 men. That situation was examined very closely by the Government. We went into it and we found that the additional cost of a proposal such as Senator O'Donnell's would be something about £90,000. Again, the Easter Week men were given notional service of four or five years for service in that particular week but to add a further £100 to their pensions would mean, in effect, giving these men notional service of about 20 years. That would be clearly undesirable as it would create a certain amount of animosity amongst men who gave longer actual service which would not in any way compare with the service that £100 would represent.
I think that is about as much as it is necessary for me to say on the various aspects of this Bill. There is only one further point to which I would like to refer and that is the fact that the House in giving me this Bill will make it possible for it to come into operation before the end of the present month, which is the end of the first quarter of the year. From that point of view the House has done excellent service on behalf of the Old I.R.A. by giving all stages of the Bill to-day, so that the whole matter can go to the Department and he speedily dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.