asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that I.R.A. men who had good service, and in some cases in major engagements, were refused pensions under the 1934 Pensions Act, while their comrades having the same type of service were awarded pensions under the 1924 Act; and, if so, if he will take steps to introduce amending legislation to remedy the position.

I am not aware that the position has arisen that certain applicants under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, have been refused pensions while others with the same type of service have been granted pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924.

I do not propose to introduce amending legislation on the lines suggested by the Deputy.

Would the Minister consider the question of the interpretation of "active service" with a view to having it examined and revised?

That would mean amending the Act and I have stated that I did not propose doing that.

The interpretation of "active service" is the crux of the whole matter under review and I respectfully ask the Minister if he will have this question examined and revised.

The interpretation of the words "active service" is a matter solely for the referee and I cannot interfere with that. That is his peculiar function.

I am interested in this matter, too, but I would like that it should be understood to mean active service pre-Truce and post-Truce. I am afraid it is misunderstood by the pensions board and I think Deputy Flynn feels that, too. I hope the Minister understands.