Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 5

CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS. [ORAL ANSWERS.] - DISCHARGED SOLDIERS' ALLOWANCES.

asked the Minister for Defence if he has received complaints from ex-members of the National Army because of the failure of the Army Authorities to give the usual 28 days' pay, ration and dependents' allowances on their discharge; and from members of the National Army because of the failure to give proficiency pay to clerks, storemen, etc., in the different Commands, and because of the failure of the Army Authorities to give the 14 days' leave authorised by Defence Order No. 30, or pay and rations in lieu thereof, and if he will take steps to remove those grievances.

I assume that the alleged failures of the Army Authorities have occurred recently. Since the 31st March last, except in a limited number of special cases, the grant of 28 days' furlough with pay and certain allowances has not been made to soldiers about to be discharged. That grant was properly authorised only while general demobilisation, which ceased about the date mentioned, was in progress. Subsequently, except in the special cases referred to, soldiers who have taken their discharges have done so in the ordinary way on completion of service. I am, however, considering the advisability of issuing grants in such cases on a smaller scale than formerly.

As regards additional pay for soldiers employed as clerks and storemen, it was not, and is not issued in all cases. Only men specially competent in the occupations mentioned receive extra pay.

Defence Order No. 30 does not authorise the grant of any leave, but a General Routine Order dated the 24th November, 1923, did so in the cases of soldiers who presented themselves for reattestation. The grant was withdrawn on the 4th March last by Defence Order No. 45, which sanctioned the issue of a bounty of £3 instead of leave, but only to soldiers who re-attested prior to the 31st March.

Having regard to what I have just said, I think the Deputy will find that most, if not all, of the complaints he has in mind are not justified.

Arising out of that answer, in view of the fact that a soldier discharged from the Army on completion of service is bound to be out of work for a time, will the Minister not consider the desirability of giving at least twenty-eight days' leave on full pay with rations allowance, as is done in other armies, in order to avoid discredit to the Army and the State?

Well, the period of enlistment of soldiers in other armies is longer than in the National Army, and to that extent there would be a difference. The matter of issuing a grant in such cases on a smaller scale than formerly, is at present under consideration.

Arising out of question and the first part of the reply, can the President state whether any official Army Order was issued cancelling the twenty-eight days' pay that these men had hoped for, and had made arrangements for under the belief that this twenty-eight days' pay would be given them—was there any order issued cancelling the previous arrangement?

It was withdrawn I understand by Defence Order 45.

What is the process the Defence Ministry adopts to make public these orders to the soldiers— are these Defence Orders brought to the notice of the soldiers?

I cannot answer that question, but I take it is in the same way as they get information that certain bounties are within their rights, and in the same way that they get the information that the bounty is withdrawn or modified. I will make inquiries into the matter.

The percolation of the information might easily take longer than 28 days.

It usually does where there is a disadvantage.

Top
Share