I move that the Bill do now pass.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL, 1926—FIFTH STAGE.
Has the Minister any information to give us regarding the proposal to fly the Atlantic? Have there been any developments since our last discussion on this matter? I do not know whether it ever had the formal sanction of the Minister, but inasmuch as the defence forces presumably include an air force, and certain officers of the air force are proposing to go on this expedition, perhaps the Minister could give us some information on the matter before we let the Bill go through?
The matter has been considered by my Department and it is the opinion that the time is not yet ripe for an expedition of this kind. It is felt that perhaps at some future date we might entertain an enterprise of this description.
There is one thing I would like to mention here. I thought that possibly Deputy Johnson or some other Deputy would have given me an opportunity of mentioning it. Certain rumours are being circulated about the army and about the demobilisation of officers. Those rumours have caused a certain amount of uneasiness and discontent. Rumours crop up from time to time, and I believe—I am firmly convinced of it—that they are circulated by some person with the object of creating mischief and discontent. The rumours have been reported in the papers and a certain amount of uneasiness has been created. I want to say here and now that there is no intention of demobilising any officer from the army. I want to make that perfectly clear to the House and to the officers of the army. In order to contradict any rumours that are in circulation, I make that statement, and I think it is only right and just that I should do so.
Can the Minister tell us if it is proposed to discharge a large number of men from the army? Is it true that such a proposal has already taken effect and is in process of being carried out? Is it a fact that a large number of men are being put out of the army without receiving what was given to the men demobilised 12 months ago—a month's pay and ration allowance? I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that men are being put out of the army, are not entitled to unemployment benefit, and have not got an allowance for rations or a month's pay, such as were given to men twelve months ago? I have heard of at least one or two cases. I want to know if it is the general policy?
Such is not the case. No men have been put out of the army. Men whose time has expired go out in the ordinary way. Sometimes time-expired men asked to be re-attested. They may be re-attested or they may not. There are no men being forced out of the army.
Is it a fact that a good number of time-expired men are being put out of the army, that they are going out without getting a month's pay and ration allowance, and that they are not even entitled to unemployed benefit?
As far as unemployment benefit is concerned, every man in the army has the matter brought to his notice. In the case of any man who is liable to be insured, or who is entitled to insurance benefit, his card is stamped. If the card is not stamped, it is the man's own fault. There are men in the army who are not entitled to be insured; they are not insured. Any man who is insurable is notified to take precautions to have his card stamped, and then he is entitled to insurance benefit just the same as anybody else.
Within the last hour I had a case from the army. In that case the man has served three years and he was demobilised a few weeks ago; he was demobilised quite recently, anyway. I asked if that man was going to get his card stamped and would he get unemployment benefit. The reply I got was that because the man's card was not stamped within a certain period he would not get benefit. That man was three years in the army, and he is now walking round the Dublin streets and he cannot get employment.
There was no man demobilised to-day, yesterday, within the last week, or within the last year. A man may be time-expired and then he goes out in the ordinary way. We are not bound to keep men after their engagements are up. If a man is an insured person his card is stamped. A Vote was passed in the Dáil for that purpose. The matter was brought to the notice of every man in the service; they all know what their rights are, because all those things are posted in the regulations. If a man does not want his card stamped, I cannot force him to stamp it. The matter is brought to his notice in the ordinary way through the regulations. If any man, such as Deputy Byrne speaks of, has gone out of the Army he is a time-expired man.
The Minister has not yet replied to the point I raised. Will a man, if he is time-expired, get the same benefits when he leaves the army as were given to those who left the army twelve or eighteen months ago? Those men got a month's pay and ration allowance.
They will not get any such thing. Twelve or eighteen months ago the men were demobilised; they were sent out of the army whether they liked it or not. In the case of a soldier who serves two or three years, whatever his period of enlistment may be, he is paid up to the day he leaves and gets no gratuity. It would be an extraordinary thing if, after a man's engagement is finished, we had to pay him because he is going away from the army. The only thing a time-expired man gets, when he is leaving the army on his own volition, is a character, let that be good or bad.
Then the Minister's statement has brought it to this: that a young man two or three years in the army—2 years and 271 days is the correct time—when he is leaving it does not receive one penny piece. He just gets his ordinary pay up to the day he leaves and then he goes away without the month's pay or the ration allowance that were given to other men, and he is not even entitled to unemployment benefit because his card was not stamped. What is to become of that man? Where will he get relief? There is no employment for him.
I would like to reinforce Deputy Byrne's argument by suggesting to the Minister that in other armies it is the practice, before a man's time expires, to allow him a certain period of leave on full pay in order to let him look for a job. The period need not be a month; sometimes it is a fortnight. A fortnight before his discharge the soldier is allowed to go away, knowing he will have his pay given to him. He sets out to find a job. I put it to the Minister, who is not an inhuman man, that it is rather a cruel thing to keep a man at the Curragh, for instance, and say to him at the end of his service: "Here you are; here is a railway warrant for you." I do not know if that is given.
Certainly.
They say to the soldier: "Go out and fend for yourself." A man at the Curragh cannot go around so easily and interview employers. When he does get away from the army he has to spend any money he may have saved supporting himself while looking for a job. I think it would be fairer treatment to give the soldier a fortnight's leave. The country will not lose by it. The only loss will be the loss to the service, and no man is very keen or enthusiastic during the last fortnight of his service; he is usually looking forward to the day when he will go out. I suggest that might be a desirable practice to adopt. It would mitigate the hardship that Deputy Byrne has referred to.
The second point I want to raise is a very small one. Why has not the Minister used Standing Order 88 to give notice of verbal changes in the Title of this Bill? Is it not rather ridiculous that in 1926 we should be asked to pass a Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1925? Should it not be 1926? Standing Order 88 gives the Minister power to put down an amendment making a verbal alteration. As it is, some Senator will have to do it when the Bill is being considered by the Seanad. I am not blaming the Minister, but I am blaming those who should have brought it to his notice.
Perhaps the Deputy is looking at the wrong Bill?
I am looking at item 8 on the Orders of the Day.
I am afraid the Deputy is not looking at the right paper. Necessary amendments in regard to what he has referred were brought in on the Committee Stage.
Then whoever prepared the Orders of the Day is at fault and not the Minister. In that case the fault was in the preparation of the Order Paper. I hope that the fact that the Minister has scored off me will make him more lenient to the plea which I have made.
I will look into that matter.
In the short statement which the Minister made in moving the Fifth Stage, he used a word which is capable of very grave interpretation, indeed, when used in connection with a military force. The word is "discontent." I should like to know—it is well to have this matter cleared up—what is the extent of the discontent he refers to. With the experience we have had—I am loth to tread on thorny ground, but it is well to get at the facts—I should be interested to hear the nature and the character of the discontent which the Minister referred to. I would like to know if this discontent refers only to—I should be glad to hear it did—uneasiness as to the future of officers of the army, and that it has no deeper significance.
The Deputy interprets the word correctly.
In view of the statement made by the Minister, that it is the intention to maintain the army at its present strength, and, consequently, at the present expenditure, I would be glad if he would say if that statement has the approval of the Executive Council.
Any statement I make as Minister for Defence here has the approval of the Executive Council, because an Executive Minister who makes a statement of that description binds the Executive Council as well as himself. My statement was that, at the present moment, it is not my intention, or the intention of the Executive Council, to demobilise any officers. I leave it at that.
Does that mean that the army is to be maintained at its present strength?
It does not mean any such thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.