While most soldiers appreciate the small provision being made in this Bill, the Minister has failed entirely in not informing the House of his proposals concerning the demobilisation of the Army and the L.D.F. However, I am glad that many Deputies, including those with whom I am associated, have, since I raised this question originally, realised the importance of this question of demobilisation and the gravity of the situation which will attend the demobilisation of a large number of soldiers, on the cessation of hostilities, or, at any rate, of the emergency here.
Since this matter was raised some time ago, apparently some people have come to realise how important it is to take certain steps, particularly in view of the plans and efforts made in other countries to deal with demobilisation efficiently and effectively. This Bill only deals with one aspect of demobilisation, that is, the retention in the Army of officers and men who wish to remain on as regular soldiers. While this Bill, as a result of its provisions, could not deal with demobilisation, it only deals in a small way with a rather grave problem which is bound to arise, and the Minister, in saying that post-war plans will be introduced to deal with demobilisation, is adopting an attitude of "live horse and you will get grass," unless he really means to introduce them immediately after the Easter Recess.
As far as the officers and men in the Army are concerned—at any rate the majority of them—they are still in the dark, because it is reasonable enough to assume that, however large the Army may be, or however large an Army in a country like this may be permitted under whatever international agreements or regulations which are likely to be adopted after the war, the vast majority of our Defence Forces will have to be demobilised sooner or later, and so far as they are concerned at the present time they are faced with very grave difficulties. They are faced, on the one hand, with uncertainty as to the duration of the emergency. I cannot blame the Minister or the Government for that, but they are also faced with limited possibilities of employment, limited possibilities of securing whatever available employment may be there, and they are faced, on the other hand, with the loss of time, resulting from their service in the Army, which they might otherwise have spent in employment or in preparing for work as tradesmen or professional men, or whatever type of work they might have been engaged in.
I do not want to repeat the arguments I made here recently on an Adjournment Debate, but I should like to say that the Minister and the Government, in fairness to the men who came forward to give their services to the country in this crisis, should immediately announce to the members of the Defence Forces, including the Local Defence Force, what plans or provision they propose to make concerning demobilisation and gratuities. As I say, I do not want to blame the Minister particularly, since this matter is the responsibility of the Government as a whole. Deputies from almost every side of the House in this debate have stated what I have already stated here: that in the case of officers and men serving in the forces there is a considerable increase in letters to Deputies and in interviews concerning the anxiety of these men to secure employment, and also their anxiety at the failure of the Government to make any provision or even to announce their plans in the matter of the demobilisation of the Army.
There are one or two other matters that I should like to bring to the Minister's attention. One of them is that we are spending a large sum of money in this country, and propose to spend more, in dealing with the tuberculosis problem. Now, a number of soldiers—not a very large number, but a comparatively large number—have been invalided out of the Army because they were found to be suffering from tuberculosis. A number of these men have applied for pensions and have been granted them, but I would say that the majority of those who have been invalided out as suffering from tuberculosis, and who applied for pensions, have been refused pensions on the old familiar ground that the disability from which they were suffering was not directly attributable to Army service. I should like to point out that while the disease or disability might not be directly attributable to Army service, and while some of these people may have had a pre-disposition towards the disease, or have had some symptoms of it, nevertheless the rigorous type of service entailed by Army life has produced active tuberculosis in the case of many of them. Now, these people, their dependents, their relations, and many others who come into contact with them are dissatisfied with the way in which they have been dealt with. It would appear to me that if we are to deal with tuberculosis in the case of other members of the community, adequate and proper provision should be made to deal with officers and men of the Army suffering from this disease, and that if they are not entitled to a disability pension, they should at any rate receive proper treatment at Army expense until they are restored to normal health or at any rate to a state of health sufficient to enable them to return to their homes and to take up light work. As far as I can understand the matter, from reading the Bill, it is difficult for a number of them to fit in under the provisions concerning disability, and I would urge on the Minister and his Department the desirability of examining that matter as soon as possible in order that some relief may be given to a number of men who have been found to be suffering from tuberculosis.
Another aspect of the Army problem which has been brought to my notice is that a number of old soldiers and officers have not received the promotion to which they considered they were entitled, in comparison with certain officers and men—and this applies particularly to officers—who enlisted during the emergency. While influence may not have been used, it is significant that certain people who have enlisted since the emergency arose, and who have had association, be it close or otherwise, with the Fianna Fáil Party, have got promotion, while others who have given long and, so far as their Army record shows, efficient and honourable service, have not received the same attention. I should be glad if the Minister would examine that matter and see if those who have been promoted were entitled to the promotion they received or if others, who have not been promoted, should have received promotion more rapidly. This, in one respect, may be of vital importance to many people in the Army when it comes to the matter of a gratuity. It is reasonable to assume that the rate of gratuities will be measured both by service and rank, and if people are being promoted merely to secure the benefits of a gratuity, then, at any rate, those who are of a different political persuasion from the Government should receive the same consideration as those who have connection with Fianna Fáil.
I think that those are most of the points I should like to bring before the Minister's attention. In conclusion, however, I should like to say that the members of the Local Defence Force are dissatisfied that no announcement has been made concerning the composition or otherwise of that force in the future. As was mentioned here yesterday, the attendances have dwindled considerably, and while it is unreasonable to assume that there would be the same enthusiasm at the moment as was present a few years ago, I think the Government are partly to blame for that, in so far as they have not announced to the members of the Local Defence Force what form, if any, that body will take in the near future or on the cessation of hostilities.
