I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to amend the Military Service Pensions Acts, 1924 to 1945.

In the course of the debate on the Second Reading, appeals were made to the Minister in regard to making some change in the operative date. In the Minister's closing statement he did not, as far as I can remember, make any pronouncement as to whether he was prepared to consider the requests made from the various Deputies. Because of that, I am going to mention the matter again and to suggest that, in view of the expressed opinion of all sections of the House, the Minister should reconsider the question of changing the operative date and accede to the request made by all Deputies that the date should be the 1st October, 1934. I think that was the operative date in the 1934 Act. We do not want to delay in any way the passage of this Bill, but on the question of the operative date, if the matter of pensions is to be reinvestigated and decisions arrived at in respect of these investigations, we feel that in justice to those who are likely to succeed in their claims, they are entitled to the same remuneration as those who succeeded originally under the 1934 Act. Failing the concession that we ask for, it will be necessary for those of us on this side of the House anyhow to oppose that section. As I say, we are not anxious to impede the passage of the Bill and, with the exception of our objection to that particular phase of the Bill, we do not intend to divide further.

In the course of the Minister's opening statement he referred to the 1924 Act. He left me under the impression that persons who applied under the 1924 Act and who had actually decisions taken in their cases were entitled to apply under the 1934 Act. In the course of his statement, the Minister said:—

"Under the 1934 Act, we did give a right to 1924 Act people to appeal against the previous decision or verdict, so that when the 1934 Act was passed people who had been rejected under the 1924 Act and at that moment were entitled to no pension were given the right to appeal, but they were given the right to pick up their pension only from the date of the passing into law of the 1934 Act."

I still feel that that is not an accurate statement. It suggests that almost any person was entitled to apply under the 1924 Act who had service in the forces. But that was not correct, of course, because you could not apply under the 1924 Act unless you actually had been in the National Army and I have no doubt that, while numbers of persons applied for a pension under the 1924 Act, they had not the necessary qualifying service in the National Army and, as a result, without any further investigation, they were turned down automatically and, probably, rightly so in accordance with the Act. But, if any persons applied under the 1924 Act and had their cases investigated and their claims examined and, after that investigation and examination, it was found they were not persons to whom the Act applied, these persons were not entitled to appeal, as the Minister suggested, under the 1934 Act.

Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1934 Act states:—

"The Act of 1924, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to apply to a person to whom that Act in fact applies but in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied either that because of such person having served in the forces he did not apply for a certificate of military service under the said Act or that such person was refused such certificate because of his having been sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude in respect of an act done by him in the execution of his duty as a member of the forces."

I think that that sub-section clarifies the position in respect to those who could or who could not apply for a pension under the 1934 Act. My reading of it anyhow is that, if you had not service in the National Army, you were not entitled to apply under the 1924 Act, and that, if you had that service and had applied and had your case investigated and a decision given against you, you could not apply under the 1934 Act.

But there were quite a number of persons to whom the Act of 1924 applied who were entitled to apply under the 1934 Act by reason of the fact that they had not applied under the 1924 Act or that they were dismissed or removed from the National Army because of some action on their part. These people could apply under the 1934 Act, and many of them did and many of them succeeded. It might be well to have that position clarified, because the Minister's statement, if it is not correct, is rather unfair, as it is making a suggestion which is not correct. It suggests that numbers of persons who could have applied under the 1924 Act could also have applied under the 1934 Act and that when the 1934 Act came into force they were deprived of the ten years which those who succeeded under the 1924 Act were entitled to.

Before the 1934 Act was brought into this House it was discussed by the then Minister with the senior officers of the Old I.R.A. throughout the country, and it was generally agreed that the monetary portion of it should only apply as from October, 1934, and at that time there was no suggestion whatever that it should go back retrospectively to 1924. To suggest that we were not doing justice because we did not go back to 1924 is far from being correct, because it was generally agreed by all those who were likely to succeed under the Act that it would be acceptable from the date suggested. There is no use in Deputies shouting across the House at me, as they did in the course of the debate on the last day, that we did not do justice either. We did that type of justice which was agreed upon and, when something is agreed to by those who are likely to benefit surely it cannot be described as an injustice to those persons.

The Deputy seems to be making a Second Reading speech.

That is exactly what I am doing.

Why?

On the Money Resolution, am I not entitled to do it?

Not to make a Second Reading speech.

I am not entitled to do it on the Money Resolution?

No. The Money Resolution deals with the money required for this and the reasons for or against it.

I am giving the reasons.

The Deputy was replying to statements made by other Deputies on the Second Reading. That is surely a Second Reading speech.

Am I not entitled to continue?

I put it to the Deputy that he should not make a Second Reading speech, and I leave it to himself to decide whether he is or not.

If I am not allowed to take advantage of the Money Resolution——

Of the Chair or of the Second Reading?

Of the Money Resolution. I had always understood that the discussion on a Money Resolution was as wide as the discussion on the Second Stage of a Bill.

That is not so.

If I am not correct, then I will sit down. All that I want to do is to clarify the situation which was created here by reason of certain statements which were made in the House. For instance, I quoted a statement of Deputy MacBride's, and in spite of the quotation and in spite of the fact that I gave the volume, the number and the column, the Minister for External Affairs, in reply to Deputy Donnchadh Ó Briain, suggested in as many words that he had not made such a statement. In column 795——

That is not clarifying this Bill. It is replying to a statement of the Minister.

If I am not allowed to make this statement, I have nothing more to say.

There is the Second Reading of a Bill on which Deputies discuss the principle of it. On the Money Resolution they discuss the money required for that Bill and reasons, relevant to the resolution, as to why it should not be granted. Obviously, it is not possible on a Money Resolution to answer all the points raised on the Second Stage by other Deputies of an opposite way of thinking on that Bill.

This Money Resolution is for the purpose of authorising the payment of the moneys necessary to give effect to this Bill when it becomes law. On that, I would like to put this point. A strong plea was made to the Minister on the Second Stage of the Bill that the operative dates in the Bill should be the 1st October, 1924, in respect of applications that might have been successful under the 1924 Act, and the 1st October, 1934, I think, in respect of applications that might have been successful under the 1934 Act. That plea was made from all sides of the House, but the Minister opposed this retrospective clause on the grounds that the money necessary to give effect to it would amount to so much that the Government could not possibly make it available.

I want to say that the decision of the Minister not to introduce amendments to this Bill to meet the wishes of the Dáil as a whole has disappointed a very large number of people right through the country. I think that the sum which is now being asked for in this Resolution will not be sufficient to give justice to the many people who undoubtedly, on a reinvestigation of their claims, will be granted pensions either under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act. I have had telegrams, letters and interviews, and I may say honestly to the Minister that the general suggestion in them is that it would be better if the Bill were not introduced at all.

Would the Deputy like it to be dropped?

I am not saying that.

That is a fair answer?

I want the Minister to understand what is being said to me.

Would the Deputy like it to be dropped at this stage?

The Minister should not try to tie me up in an answer until I have made my point.

I can ask a question as well as anybody else.

The point has been made that it would be better if the Bill had never been introduced at all than to introduce it with these provisions in it that do a grave injustice to quite a large number of people.

Does the Deputy regard the Bill as an injustice?

I regard it——

Because, if so, it should be dropped.

I know the Minister is anxious to drop the Bill, but he is not going to have any assistance from me in dropping the Bill.

The Minister is not anxious to do an injustice to the Old I.R.A.

I know that, and I appreciate fully the Minister's position. The Minister explained here in the House that he discussed the matter with certain representatives of organisations, and that he got them to accept the principle——

At this point, the Minister is entitled to ask does the Deputy regard this Bill as an injustice to the Old I.R.A.?

I regard——

The Deputy is not obliged to answer.

The Deputy will not answer.

The Deputy will answer, but he will answer in his own way and in his own time.

In so much time that the Deputy is straying a bit. The Deputy realises that he debated this at very great length before.

I am grateful to the Chair because I know that I am having great difficulty in keeping within narrow limits.

He is being led up the garden path.

I am entitled to put this point within the rules of the House in regard to this Resolution.

As interpreted by the Chair.

Yes, and I am endeavouring to do it within the ruling of the Chair. What I want to say is that, since the Minister replied to the debate on the Second Reading, those people have said that it would have been better not to introduce the Bill at all than to introduce it with these limitations in it.

Who are those people?

They are individuals who believe that they will be entitled to a pension under the Bill.

Anonymous?

They are not anonymous. I do not think that I would be keeping within the rules if I were to give their names now.

The Chair would like you to say whether you agree with them or not.

The Chair is not concerned with my views at all. What I want to put to the Minister is that, in the investigation of claims under this Bill when it becomes law, a number of people who have already applied for pensions will be entitled to pensions. In other words, it will be discovered that, in the investigations under this measure, an injustice was done to those people either under the 1924 Act or under the 1934 Act. If that is so, justice, in my view, demands that this Dáil should make available to the Minister such moneys as will enable him, by making this Bill retrospective, to do justice to those persons. I have put down certain amendments for the Committee Stage.

There will be no amendments on the Committee Stage.

I have been informed that these amendments are out of order.

Therefore, they do not exist.

I think it is a constitutional provision that a Deputy must not put down an amendment that will involve a charge on public funds. That being so, the only person who could put an amendment down to give effect to this general view—and it is the view of people who will never get pensions as well as of those who will that the pension should date from the operative date under the 1924 or 1934 Acts—is a Minister. I am quite sure the Minister is aware that that is the view of the organisations who represent many of the people who will be applicants under this measure. The Minister says to me: "Do you want this Bill dropped?" I do not want it dropped.

That does not relate to the Money Resolution.

That question was put to me and I said I would answer it in my own time.

Fair enough.

I do not want the Bill dropped. The Bill will provide pensions for people entitled to them, but even though it does that, it will do a grave injustice by depriving those people of pensions over many years during which those pensions ought to have been paid to them.

I think the Deputy has got fair latitude.

I am very thankful for that. I know the limitations in connection with this Resolution. I merely wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to press the Minister to widen the scope of the Resolution.

And the Deputy has done so.

I was anxious that he would widen the scope so that the pensions might be paid retrospectively under the two Acts referred to.

I also made reference to some of these matters on the Second Reading and while I did appeal to the Minister to have these sections made retrospective, I realise the difficulties and, like Deputy Cowan, I understand I cannot refer to the amendments.

They are dead.

The Minister undoubtedly has brought forward certain proposals that we fully appreciate, even though they are not what we looked forward to. He has advanced from the position in which some of our men found themselves disqualified and were turned down under the 1934 Act. These men were left in the wilderness. Even though the provisions of this measure are not retrospective, we find they will assist, perhaps in a great measure, some of those men who otherwise might get nothing. I ask the Minister not to drop this Bill.

Has the Deputy anything to say about the Money Resolution?

If I am allowed, I suggest that the operative date should be reconsidered. Perhaps at a later date the Minister might find some way out of the difficulty. Our old comrades all over the country realise that if there is a liberal interpretation put on their period of service, in that way it might be possible to bridge the gap that we now have in mind when we talk of retrospective payment. It will all finally depend on the Minister's attitude. If the rigid interpretation that was put on active service is adhered to——

The Deputy is not now dealing with the Money Resolution; he is dealing with the Bill.

I am in favour of the Bill going ahead. We have done our utmost to convince the Minister and the House that these retrospective terms should be introduced. All I can say is that I appreciate what the Minister has done. This certainly has come as a disappointment to me and I was not informed of all those warnings at the outset. I was not present when these men were informed that under no circumstances could the Bill be made retrospective. The Bill, to my mind, holds some hope for the future. I think we can look forward to an improvement of the position. I know that the Minister is anxious to assist the Old I.R.A. I appreciate what he has done for us in the circumstances.

It is with considerable trepidation that I set out to tread along the narrow path that has been laid down for us in dealing with this Money Resolution, particularly when I think of the difficulties other Deputies have experienced. The position would appear to be something like this. The Minister is asking the House to adopt a Money Resolution and there are only two logical courses open to any Deputy. He can say "no", that he thinks the House should not adopt this Resolution and that he will vote against it or, alternatively, he can say that the Resolution should be adopted.

I may be dull, but it does not appear to me possible to suggest, on the one hand, that the Bill is desirable in any form and, on the other hand, to say that the Money Resolution should be rejected. I may be obtuse in not seeing the point of the comments made by other Deputies, but that appears to me to be the position as far as this Money Resolution is concerned. Viewing it against its background, we as a Party have always felt that the entire body of pension legislation is something that we could not embrace with any real enthusiasm. It is something which does not accomplish what was sought to be accomplished. We feel that pensions, as such, are not the proper solution.

That is not the Money Resolution.

I am trying to relate the Money Resolution to the background against which I see it.

The Deputy can relate the Money Resolution to the background.

We would consider it preferable to have a Money Resolution covering legislation to provide adequate and generous grants in cases of hardship rather than pensions. However, the Money Resolution is before us in its present form——

And the Second Reading of the Bill has been approved by the House.

The Second Reading of the Bill has been approved. Other Bills dealing with this matter have been passed by this House and we must accept the situation as it is. The granting or withholding of a pension by an Administration is a matter of grave import and consequence. In so far as this Resolution is related to a Bill which seeks to rectify mistakes made by a previous Administration, then I think the Resolution must be supported. In connection with a previous Administration, the courts found that the legislation enacted was in fact not administered in accordance with the law and was in fact maladministered.

That does not arise on this Money Resolution.

The courts never made such a finding.

I cannot deal with the Deputy's statement because the Chair has ruled this matter out of order. In order to rectify the mistakes made by the last Administration, I would appeal to the Minister to use his utmost endeavours not to place those people who, because of the mistakes that were made in the past, are to-day deprived of pensions, in a worse position than they would have been had no such mistakes occurred.

I support Deputy Aiken's statement with regard to the operative date. Since the Second Reading of this Bill I have come across a glaring case of where injustice was done as a result of the 1924 Act. The particular individual got a pension under the 1934 Act. With the introduction of this new Bill, together with the Money Resolution, I think the State should do justice now to all these men.

Should they not have done it before?

There were a lot of injustices done under the Act that you introduced in 1924.

I did not introduce any Act, Deputy.

The Party that that man, who interrupted, belongs to, did.

But the Deputy should address the Chair.

I am dealing with a few specific cases that have come to my notice.

The Deputy cannot deal with specific cases either for or against the Money Resolution.

I want the Minister to know that I object to the operative date because I feel this will impose further injustices. I think the time has come when the injustices done in the past should be rectified once and for all.

I would like the Money Resolution in this matter covering more than £50,000. The purpose of this Bill is to cover the remaining 1916 men who did not get justice under the 1934 Act. I do not agree with Deputy Aiken when he says this Bill should not be introduced. I think the remaining Old I.R.A. are very glad it has been introduced. This may be the last opportunity we shall have to do justice to these men, since their numbers are dwindling.

I support the statements made by Deputy O'Leary. I think most of us regard this Bill as the final effort to do justice to those people who were unfairly treated in the past. I think the few remaining men of Easter Week, 1916, have never got the recognition to which they are entitled.

Would the Deputy relate all that to the Money Resolution?

I submit that there is not sufficient money being provided to do that. I am concerned with more than the material aspect of this point. I hold the view that the men of Easter Week, 1916, should be given a special place in the legislation enacted by the Parliament, which became possible because of what they did on that memorable occasion. I hope the Minister will find some way of adorning our legislation in the proper way in regard to that particular week which, undoubtedly, led to the freedom of this country.

Some Deputies have expressed the view that this will be the last Bill——

We are not considering the Bill. We are considering the Money Resolution.

Yes, Sir. My objection to the Money Resolution, as proposed, is that it does not make sufficient provision to enable justice to be done. If there are, as alleged, a large number of men who are definitely entitled to a pension and to whom an injustice has been done by not bringing them in under either the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act, is it justice now——

Was it justice then?

——to allow them a pension from the date specified in this Bill, without giving them any back money in respect of the period to which, after all, if they had the same claim as their comrades had they were entitled?

If you were over here they would not get anything at all.

Will the Deputy cease interrupting? He is getting very bad.

I think he had better go. That is my first objection. My second objection is that the Minister has stated in this House that the measure can cover only 2,000 cases. Practically every Deputy who has had any connection with the Old I.R.A. knows very well that it is not a question of 2,000 cases, it is a question of 12,000 or 14,000 cases. When this Bill has finished operating and when this bit of money is expended, you will have Deputies in this House who will be in the very same position as we now are. There will be dissatisfaction on the part of those who get it. They will say: "I am getting 5/- a week now, but what about my back money from 1924"—or 1934 as the case may be. "When are you going to bring in a Bill to give us that?" The poor devil who again goes through the mill and is again turned down will again be pressing and looking for justice——

That is a Second Reading speech.

This Bill covers only 2,000 men at £25 a year.

The Deputy is supposed to be dealing with the Money Resolution. Instead of that, he has been dealing with the Bill itself.

The Money Resolution is for the purpose of giving effect to the amendment of Military Service Pensions Acts from 1924 to 1945. I claim that the amount of money provided will not permit what the Minister and other Deputies here have stated will be done, namely, the remedying of an injustice.

What is the amount of the money?

The Minister has the amount before him.

I thought you said it was not sufficient.

It is £50,000, is it not?

Read the Money Resolution.

I have read it.

Whatever is required.

That simplifies matters.

Whatever is required.

Order.

There is no money in the Resolution, but the Minister has already stated how much is going to be provided. He has also stated that it will give a tardy measure of justice to 2,000 men.

The Deputy is repeating himself.

There are more men than that in Cork County alone waiting for them. I have to agree with the Money Resolution because, at least, there will be some bit of money given to some, and perhaps justice will be done in some small measure. However, I warn this House that in view of the manner in which this Bill has been brought in here and put through, you will have other measures at the same pressure as before.

One would think that, 28 years after the event, it should be time to finish up the Republic.

Do not draw me, for I will answer you.

I take this opportunity of asking the Minister, before the House votes on the Money Resolution and in order to get some issues clear in my mind, whether he considers that within the terms of this Money Resolution there is adequate provision for obtaining sufficient money to cover the claims of certain groups of men who have not been provided for heretofore. I would mention, notably, the Connaught Ranger mutineers—those of them who have not yet pensions—and surviving members of the Casement Brigade.

The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech.

I did not make any speech on the Second Reading——

The Chair did not allege that the Deputy made a speech on the Second Reading. The Deputy is starting a Second Reading speech now. He desires to have introduced into this measure classes that are not in it. The Money Resolution is for the purpose of providing the money necessary for the implementation of this measure.

I assure the Chair that I had no intention of making a Second Reading speech. I am merely seeking clarification of the position before the Money Resolution is put and before I have to vote for it. I simply rose to ask the question as to what the position of these men will be.

I suggest that the Money Resolution can provide any amount of money the Minister may think necessary to deal justly with the people——

Within the four corners of the Bill.

Within the Bill.

I cannot understand the attitude adopted by members of the Opposition. They were led by Deputy Traynor who himself, undoubtedly, when he was Minister, went a long way —I am sure he thought himself that he went all the way—to meet the claims of all genuine applicants for military service pensions. I am long enough in this House to remember a statement made by the late Mr. Fitzgerald, when he was Minister for Defence, to the effect that the maximum number of persons who, in his opinion, would be entitled to service pensions, on the grounds that they had rendered active service, would not exceed 3,000. I do not know what Deputy Traynor would think of that figure, but it has been indicated that this Bill, which got the unanimous consent of the House on its Second Reading, proposes to go further than Deputy Traynor, when he was Minister for Defence, intended to go. I remember listening in this House to Deputy Traynor, when he was Minister for Defence, indicating quite clearly that the inquiries in connection with all the cases then outstanding would be completed by the end of the year 1948.

The Deputy's reminiscences are very interesting, but what about the Money Resolution?

This resolution proposes to go further than Deputy Traynor was willing to go. That, surely, should be welcomed by Deputy Traynor if he believes that there were some cases that were not properly dealt with under the Administration when he was Minister for Defence. I brought cases under the notice of the Minister for Defence, both by correspondence and in this House——

The Deputy is again reminiscing.

——the type of case that is provided for in this Resolution——

They have nothing to do with this Resolution.

I am talking not of an individual, but of a type of case which this Bill proposes to put right. Deputy Allen knows people in Enniscorthy— persons whose signatures were accepted and who were regarded as competent to certify that a man rendered active service and was entitled to a pension. But up to the present a man who gave that certain information was adjudged as not entitled to a pension.

The administration of this Act has nothing to do with it.

I am quite certain that——

The Deputy might go quietly. Shouting when the Chair is speaking is not an answer. The bringing up of cases, and the administration thereof under a previous Government is not relevant to this Money Resolution.

I was not shouting or, in any case, I did not intend to be offensive to the Chair; take my assurance for that. This Money Resolution will make provision for the payment of pensions to persons who were unfairly treated by previous Administrations. I am not referring to one particular Administration but to all the Administrations which have gone before.

I want to correct a statement which Deputy Davin made. I made it clear—I made it very clear to the Minister I know—that we were not voting against the Money Resolution or against the Bill but against what we believe to be an injustice in Section 2 of the Bill, which contains the operative date. That is all we are doing. We are in favour of the Bill and any Deputy who suggests we are not is not correct.

Is it not a fact that if the Minister were sitting opposite they would not get 1d. of the money in the Resolution?

The Deputy understands that if he voted against a section of the Bill and that vote were carried it would defeat the Bill, so it would be better to vote against the whole Bill.

Are we not entitled to vote against the section? If the Minister says that because we are voting against the section we are voting against the whole Bill I think he is entirely wrong.

We will deal with that when we come to it.

We are in entire agreement with the provisions of the Bill but we are not in agreement with Section 2 and the operative date.

In other words, you will pass the Bill without any date so that it can never be operated?

There is no reference in the Money Resolution to the amount of money requested, but the Minister in his Second Reading speech mentioned £50,000 per annum. We believe that if it is intended to do justice to whatever outstanding claims there may be £50,000 is not sufficient at all.

To rectify injustice.

To make provision for the claims of those people whom the Minister has in mind and for whom retrospective provision should be made in the Bill. The Minister in his Second Reading speech mentioned that this was an appeal measure. If it is an appeal measure it means that it is an appeal against perhaps certain decisions that were made before. In the ordinary course if there is an appeal against the decision of one court to another court and if the litigant succeeds he gets all the benefits he would have been entitled to had he succeeded in the other court.

The statutory limitation does not apply?

A limitation should apply here. If a claimant succeeds under this Bill he should be entitled to all the benefits there are for the people who succeeded under previous Acts. Either they have a claim or not, either it is just or not, but if they have a claim in justice, full justice should be meted out to them.

The Minister is not going to look for enough money. I doubt if there is in the country any fair-minded man with any conception of the services rendered to the country by the I.R.A. who would object to more money for them. Money will never repay or compensate many of them. Comparatively very few are left and as the weeks go on I am afraid that the numbers will be reduced. I would at this stage specially plead with the Minister to take his courage in his hands and look for more money and accept the amendments and then perhaps we will satisfy many of the old soldiers who are left.

I feel there is a difficulty in closing the debate on the Money Resolution because, if I am to follow the substance of the debate that has taken place, it will be a Second Reading debate I must wind up, but some of the points and speeches which have been made have got to be replied to, and replied to straight away, because we are dealing with people to whom every one of us owes an immense debt of gratitude. There should be no trickery and no political dodgery about facing up to a Bill of this kind. I can listen with patience and toleration to the word "justice" being used either from the left or from behind me, but when I hear opposite in connection with a Bill of this kind the words "justice" and "injustice" bandied about, then I am entitled to say to Deputy Traynor and all his cohorts that I assume that their conception of justice to the men of the Old I.R.A. was contained in their Act of 1945. If they did not believe that the Act of 1945 was a just Act, then it was criminal ever to introduce it. What did the Act of 1945, introduced by Deputy Traynor, contain? It contained Section 5, which slammed and bolted the door on any further hearing of any appeal.

After 14 years.

It did not matter whether it was after 14 or 34. Your conception of justice was that in 1945 all justice had been done and that no further case should have the right of appeal either retrospectively or otherwise.

Not even when there was new evidence.

That is true. That was your idea of justice. If it was not in your mind justice at that date it was scandalous to pass such a Bill and apply it to the Old I.R.A. Your idea of justice was that no further I.R.A. claimant should ever get a pension either for the rest of his life or retrospectively. That was the situation which confronted me as the Deputy's successor and I was satisfied from representations made from all over the country that there were cases which were deserving of a rehearing and that there were cases for which I should establish a board of appeal and that if it were at all possible to do full justice to them and give them their pensions not only for the rest of their lives but retrospectively, I would be anxious to do it.

I went into the whole situation and had to take into account the condition of public finance and the capacity of the people to bear the further demands of a very great, numerous and onerous amount that were being made on the public taxpayer. I was confronted with the task of deciding whether I could introduce a Bill of this kind, reopening a door and giving not only pensions to Old I.R.A. men for the rest of their lives, but giving them to them for the rest of their lives and in addition giving them a lump sum by way of retrospective payment. I calculated, or had estimated for me as well as could be done, what would be the cost of one or both; and the decision of the Government—and the decision I was forced to agree with—was that the financial commitments of trying to do the two together were too great, that half a loaf was better than no bread and that it would be better to give a pension to those men, successful applicants, for the rest of their lives without retrospective pension application, than to leave them the way Deputy Traynor left them, without either a pension or any retrospective lump sum.

I was conscious of the fact that I was not doing as much as I would like to do, but I was doing as much as I could and that is as much as anybody could be expected to do. If any other Government, in the course of time, is prepared to go the rest of the road, then at all events I was blazing the trail, steam-rolling the road and making it easy for them to go the rest of the way. I would have the tribunal established, I would have the claims adjudicated on, and there would be nothing to do but for Deputy Traynor, now that he is dressed in sack-cloth and ashes, if he ever sits here again, to issue cheques for the amounts. I would have established a board, reviewed the assessments of the past and done justice to the appeal. This is not going the whole road, but I am going a considerable distance along the road, in the direction that most Deputies would like me to go. The rest of the road I cannot go at the moment, no matter how much I would like to do it.

I do not want any Deputy to support the Money Resolution, or any further Stages of the Bill, in blinkers. All I am doing in this Bill is re-establishing a board to rehear cases on appeal, cases that were turned down in the past or cases that never applied in the past. In so far as I am giving these people another chance for financial recognition for their services in the past, I am wiping out Section 5 of Deputy Traynor's Act and I am reopening at least a little prospect of some recognition with regard to the future. Now, with regard to the justice or otherwise of whether retrospective payment should be made, I am not going to enter into an argument with any Deputy as to whether these people's claim would not equate with other people's claim with regard to the right to retrospective payment. I am merely going to say that that bill would be so formidable that we would not be prepared to meet it at the present moment. In the meantime, we are reassessing their claims, we will issue certificates of service, we will grade those who are successful for pension, and that will clear up much of the road for any future Government, or for the present Government if financial conditions are easier in the future.

There is another point I would like to make. Let us look at one another squarely in the eye and have no squints in our eyes when we are doing it. Deputy Kissane stands up and says: "We are not against the Bill, we are for the Bill, but we are going to vote against the section that lays down the operative date." Deputy Kissane is no chicken in politics or in any other sense of the word. He knows very well that, if he votes against a section of a Bill that lays down the operative date and carries that section, he leaves the Bill without any operative date and he might as well have the courage to stand up and vote against the Bill, because, in fact, that is what he is doing. Anybody who supports the evasive stand of Deputy Kissane is voting dead against the measure, killing the Bill and depriving the Old I.R.A. of even the little bit they are to get under the Bill. I sat over there as well as here and if ever I opposed a measure, I never opposed it in that oblique manner. I opposed it straight out and took the consequences of my vote. It is nonsense for the Deputy to say he is supporting the Bill but opposing the operative section of the Bill.

There is one other point which is of some academic interest to Deputy Traynor and myself. The Deputy referred to the Act of 1934 and said it did not rob the 1924 Act people of their retrospective rights. The Deputy read one section of his Act of 1934 and not another. If he reads Section 16 of the 1934 Act, he will see that, up to the passing of that section, every 1924 Act case had a right to retrospective payment; but from the passing of that section onwards there was no retrospective payment to any 1924 Act case. I do not necessarily regard precedents laid down by the Deputy or his colleagues in Government as being sacred or anything to be revered, honoured or followed, but I would expect that from the Deputy himself.

I am moving this Money Resolution in a blunt and straightforward manner, to implement this Bill. The Bill is reconstituting the court of appeal to hear cases of people suffering or believed to suffer under an injustice through the Act of 1945 and through previous boards. I am giving them a right to be reheard, I am reconstituting the board, and any applicant who is successful in the rehearing will get a pension for the rest of his life. Under this Bill, I am unable to give him retrospective payment, but following on this Bill I will have cleared the road, I will have assessed the pension, I will have re-established the board; and if anybody else has the money to go better, I have brought them so far along the road.

After that, they will troop in after the Minister all right.