Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1947

Vol. 104 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 63—Army.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £559,620 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1947, for the Army and the Army Reserve (including certain Grants-in-Aid) under the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts, and for certain administrative Expenses in connection therewith; for Expenses in connection with the trial and detention of certain persons (No. 28 of 1939, No. 1 of 1940 and No. 16 of 1940, etc.); for certain Expenses under the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 and 1940 (No. 13 of 1939 and No. 2 of 1940) and the Air-raid Precautions Act, 1939 (No. 21 of 1939); for Reserve Medical Supplies for Civilian Hospitals; for certain Expenses of the Local Defence Force, 1941 to 1946; for Expenses in connection with the issue of Medals, etc.; for Expenses in connection with the Production of certain Chemicals for Sale; for certain Expenses in connection with Blood Transfusion; and for the Expenses of the Bureau of Military History.

The explanation for this Supplementary Vote of £559,620 is briefly as follows:—

Under sub-head A, we require an additional sum of £335,500, partly to meet the increase in Army pay which became operative on September 1st, 1946, partly to meet a sum of £33,500 in respect of arrears of deferred pay, and partly to meet increased expenditure due to the fact that many men, especially those on the higher rates of pay, asked to have their demobilisation deferred until they had made suitable arrangements for their resettlement in civilian life. The increased rates of Army pay for all ranks have already been promulgated and are about 25 per cent. over the previous rates. In the case of deferred pay, for which £33,500 is required, this is a relic of the increase in pay granted to the Army during the emergency. That increase was six-pence a day for all non-commissioned ranks as from 29th September, 1942, but was not payable until the date of discharge or the end of the emergency. When framing the annual Estimate for 1946-47 in December, 1945, it was thought that this problem would be almost solved by 31st March, 1946, and accordingly in that Estimate we provided a sum of only £1,000. Actually, however, claims totalling about £34,500 have had to be dealt with during the financial year.

Under sub-head A (4), which deals with emergency gratuities and re-enlistment bounties, we have the main cause of the Supplementary Estimate. In the original Estimate of £770,000, it was considered that a sum of £755,000 would complete, for all practical purposes, the payment of emergency gratuities, in addition to the balance of £15,000 for re-enlistment bounties. Further, owing to the deferment of demobilisation during the first three months of 1946, we surrendered under this heading on 31st March, 1946, the sum of £91,267, so that in effect that unexpected amount had to be met out of the £755,000 provided in the current annual Estimate. Owing to the same factor of deferment of demobilisation, the rate of gratuity payable was higher than anticipated, so that we now find that an additional sum of £426,000 is required. I might mention that against the £755,000 for emergency gratuities for which the Estimate provides, we have expended up to the end of January, 1947, £1,163,927, so that for the last two months of the year only £17,073 is being sought.

The increase of £77,000 on the sum required for the payment of marriage allowance under sub-head B is due partly again to the deferment of demobilisation and partly to the increased rates of marriage allowance which became operative on 1st September, 1946. In this connection, it will be appreciated that many married men elected to remain in the Army until they were in a position to provide for their families in civilian life.

Sub-head C provides for the payment of civilians attached to units and here a sum of £83,500 is required. In this case, the increase is due to tradesmen and technicians leaving the Army more quickly than we had anticipated. With the resumption of industrial activities after the emergency, these men obtained civilian employment and, accordingly, left the Army as soon as such employment offered. Meanwhile, barracks had to be maintained, and works in progress completed, so that there was no alternative but to use civilian in place of military labour.

The main cause of the excess under sub-head E, pay of officers of medical service, was the payment of arrears to certain officers of that service following an agreement reached with the medical association. A dispute existed for several years regarding the interpretation of the regulation dealing with the pay of such officers, and the agreement arrived at involved a payment of arrears totalling £20,471. The balance of £3,779 now required is due to the new rates of pay consequent on the agreement.

Of the £42,500 required under sub-head E for provisions and allowances in lieu, £20,000 is what may be described as a book-keeping or accounting entry, because it represents a purchase of supplies issued on repayment, and a contra compensating entry for the same amount appears under sub-head Z as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the Vote. The remaining £22,500 is due to the increased cost in the price of rations and in the amount of ration allowance payable.

Under sub-head M, clothing and equipment, two factors operated to form the increase of £34,500. The first was that men on demobilisation or discharge took a cash allowance in lieu of clothes and, hence, an additional sum of about £20,000 is required for such allowances. The second factor is that we are providing, tentatively, a sum of £14,500 for the purchase of new walking-out uniforms for other ranks.

As things stand at the moment, it is not certain whether it will be possible to obtain delivery of the uniforms during the present financial year. The sum of £14,500 does not, of course, represent the total cost of such uniforms when all the men are fitted out with them.

The £14,900 required under sub-head F is really a revote. In 1941-42 we ordered a quantity of ammunition which was not delivered. When framing the original Estimate for 1946-47, we did not expect that delivery would be made during that year, and, accordingly, provided only a token sum of £10. During the year, however, delivery was effected. I might mention that this indent was one of the few not cancelled at the termination of the emergency.

The sum of £300 set out under sub-head P (3) represents outstanding claims in respect of services rendered in connection with blood transfusion. Thus we owe the Office of Public Works £277 for rent, adaptation and repairs to the premises used for the purpose, and the balance for various other items.

Sub-head R deals with expenditure on fuel, light and water in kind. This sub-head has always been calculated on a capitation basis and, for many years, the cost was fivepence a head for all ranks of the Army. Owing to the fact that during the emergency the soldiers cut their own turf, the amount per head was reduced from 5d. to 3d. and this was followed in the original Estimate. Army-won turf is now exhausted, however, and, consequently, any turf required will cost more.

The £9,400 needed under sub-head U is a relic of the emergency and represents an amount additional to that provided for and actually paid to owners of private property damaged or commandeered during military occupation.

The excess under sub-head X (Incidental Expenses) is mainly due to advertisements in connection with the drive for additional recruits for the Army.

The token sum of £5 asked for under sub-head Y represents a new service, the establishment, under the Department, of a Bureau of Military History, 1913-1921. The Government has decided to establish such a bureau for the purpose of collecting material relating to military activities in securing national independence during the period 1913-1921. This will include: (1) the examination of existing records (including material furnished in connection with applications for military service pensions, if and so far as such material could properly be made available); (2) collection of additional material; (3) the arrangement of material so as to make it readily available for use in due course in the preparation of a history or histories of the period.

The bureau, which will be assisted by an advisory committee, will consist of a director, three full-time members, and one part-time member, in addition to a small clerical staff.

Of the £16,300 required for An FÓrsa Cosanta Áitiúil under sub-head Y (3) £15,000 is really a revote. In a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1945-46, the House approved of a sum of £15,000 for the Force, but, owing to the fact that the reorganisation was not fully completed before the end of March, 1946, the payment was withheld and has now to be met during the current year.

The expenditure on the 14 sub-heads mentioned thus amounts to the gross sum of £1,103,830, but this is offset by credits or savings in two other directions. The first is a surplus of £48,640 in respect of appropriations in aid of the Vote. These receipts arise from a variety of sources, but, in the main, they represent the sale of boots to members of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and a refund in respect of military stores overcharged in a previous year.

The second offset is from savings on other sub-heads of the Vote, and represent a large and varied number of items. Speaking generally, however, they may be summarised under five headings, as follows:—(1) the deferring of the purchases of stores, £261,020; (2) the reduction in certain services, £65,850; (3) saving on the Construction Corps, £40,900; (4) savings on annual training of reserve, £64,800; (5) unemployment insurance, £63,000. Total: £495,570. Hence the net amount required is £559,620.

Inasmuch as the sum required in this Vote is to be devoted largely to the payment of increased salaries and allowances, I am not opposed to it. I have always urged that the first essential in connection with the Army, irrespective of its size, was that it should be adequately paid. In that way, we should have a contented, happy and satisfied body of officers, N.C.O.'s and men. I am glad that the increases which are payable from September last have at last been decided upon. At another time, disagreement may be expressed with the total amount required for the purposes of the Defence Forces but, as the sum now asked is required largely in respect of increases of pay and betterment of conditions, I think it can be supported. During the closing stages of the emergency, officers and men were informed that it was desirable, in their own interest, to make provision, wherever possible, to secure employment outside. Of course, some of them had employment available to them at the end of the emergency and had not to worry about securing alternative employment. That referred to a considerable number of men who had been employed in Government Departments and banks and to a large number who had been in the service of private employers. In so far as those affected did at that time take that advice, they rendered not merely a service to themselves but, inasmuch as the majority of them would not re-enlist for permanent service at the end of the emergency, they rendered a service to the State. That being so, I feel that these men have been treated unfairly.

Officers and men who retired prior to the 2nd September received smaller pensions than those who remained on and retired after that date. I think that the Minister was unfair in not making it quite clear that a specific date would be fixed on which increased pay would come into operation and that a definite date would be laid down for those taking their retirement and, consequently, their demobilisation gratuities. Quite a large number of officers and men acted in a patriotic manner in retiring as soon as employment was open to them. Those affected feel seriously aggrieved that they had not prior notice and were not able to partake of the higher pension rates or of the higher rates of pay for whatever additional period they might have served. I feel that the Minister should explain to those men why no definite date was laid down. In May, 1945, a White Paper was issued which dealt with many matters, including gratuities, and which laid down specific details concerning men who wished to retire. It also mentioned that those who, owing to circumstances, could not retire at that time would be obliged to remain for a further period. In the middle of last year, a change was made in the terms and conditions under which these men were serving and I feel that the men who retired earlier were unfairly treated. The Minister should make some explanation and apology to them. The best form of apology would not be verbal. It would take the form of increased gratuities to those who retired in response to Government appeals.

There is another matter to which I desire to refer. The complaint I have to make is of long standing. Its causes are operating far more severely at present than they did in the past.

That is the fact that the last meal of the day in Army circles is at 4.30 p.m. or in certain cases at 5 o'clock. As the Minister is aware, the bread rationing in operation at the present time and the consequent reduction in the rations available for soldiers as for everyone else, mean that the last meal is smaller than it was heretofore. It also means that because there is a reduction in the amount of bread available for the evening meal, soldiers are obliged to secure another meal in the evening after they leave barracks. At the present time, catering establishments at the Curragh and other centres are already overtaxed and I would suggest to the Minister that some substitute should be provided for the evening meal and that a later evening meal should be added.

The particular complaint I have received is that a number of these recruits who have gone into the Curragh depot have to undergo long and fairly arduous physical exercise and that, consequently, they have keener appetites and greater capacities. Yet, these men find themselves, so far as Army rations are concerned, finishing their last meal at 4.30 p.m., or 5 o'clock. Many of them are young people and this cold weather has sharpened their appetites. The result is that they are obliged to provide themselves out of their pay with a meal later in the evening. I would suggest that as rations are part of the pay and allowances to which soldiers are entitled, although in present circumstances it is difficult to increase the bread ration, some substitution should be made by providing a meal of potatoes or some other foodstuffs. Recruits, who had no previous experience of Army life and who were not accustomed to finishing their meals at 4.30 or 5 o'clock in the evening, should be provided with a meal at a later hour. While these recruits may have been made aware of the conditions under which they would have to serve, they did not realise the hardships they would have to undergo by the fact that they would receive no meal after 4.30. Of course, most of them have to provide themselves with meals outside at later hours but I would suggest to the Minister that if recruits are entitled to expect that rations should be included in their pay and allowances, then the rations should be adequate. Though it may mean a departure from precedent and practice as obtaining in the Army, there should be some arrangement other than having the last meal at 4.30 or 5 o'clock.

I am glad to see that the Minister has at last come to an agreement with the medical officers and that the dispute which hindered harmonious relations and which operated to the detriment not merely of the officers concerned but of the Army in general has been satisfactorily solved and that it has now been decided to pay certain moneys which were formerly withheld.

I should like to make a few remarks on the situation suggested by this Estimate. The total figure for the Army for the current year is raised to £5,135,930. The Minister indicates that the increased provision now asked for arises largely out of the fact that the pay of officers and men has been increased and that certain gratuities that should have been paid last year are being paid now instead. What we cannot afford to lose sight of is that, although the cost of the Army has been raised now to above £5,000,000, that is the cost of even a smaller Army than the Minister told the House he was providing for when introducing the Estimate last year. He indicated last year that he was estimating for a force which consisted of 1,504 officers, 9,270 other ranks, 146 cadets, a Construction Corps of 1,775, 21 chaplains, and 153 nurses—a total of 12,869. What I want to call attention to is that whereas the Minister estimated for 1,504 officers, the fact was that on the 31st December last the number of officers in the Army was 1,115, that is 389 less than the Minister estimated for, and that instead of having 9,270 other ranks he had 7,574, that is, that he had 1,696 less men than the Estimate provided for. The demand for five million odd pounds therefore is for a substantially smaller Army than the Minister estimated for. That brings us to a consideration of the Minister when he brings his new Estimate before us in a very short time now.

During the discussions that have taken place on the Army in the last few weeks the Minister has insisted that we have tried to mix up Army policy and external policy. I want to say that in facing the bill which this Supplementary Estimate suggests we shall have to face for the Army next year, we shall have to be realists in discussing the fact that men are going to be asked to spend their time in the Army and that they have to be organised, trained and equipped for a certain purpose. We must be prepared to face in a realistic way every question that arises to people of commonsense and responsibility. I suggest to the Minister that we cannot dissociate the idea of our keeping an extensive Army here, absorbing the time and the energy of the men in that Army, from our relations with the outside world.

The Deputy suggests that these matters will arise on the main Vote?

I am just reminding him of that.

I am only just reminding the Minister that this is one way of emphasising how serious the case, as shown by this Supplementary Estimate, is. If we are going to have a number of men and officers, even to the extent of the Army in existence on the 31st December last, occupied in military organisation and military training, we want to know in what way they are going to be organised and what they are going to be trained for. I hope that when we reach these discussions we shall have more of the ordinary members of the Minister's Party speaking about these matters. I welcome the fact that Deputy Major de Valera intervened to a considerable extent in the discussion of these matters during the last few weeks, much as I disagree with some of his ideas, but this is the place to hear ideas of various kinds and reconcile them and challenge them one against another. He told us that it would be premature to think of discussing here the equipment of our Army.

Is it not premature to discuss it now instead of on the main Vote?

We are asked here to discuss under sub-head P the provision of an additional £14,900 for warlike stores, and I ask what they are and why we are asked to pay that additional amount over what we expected to pay. In all, we are being asked to pay £31,135 for warlike stores during the current year.

It is obvious that the Deputy was not listening to my statement.

I explained the meaning of sub-head P.

That it was for ammunition.

Yes, of course.

Ammunition for what?

What do you think? Pop guns or blow pipes, would you suggest?

It is not sufficient to tell us at this hour of the day that we are spending £31,000 on ammunition ordered some years ago. On the general question, it is ridiculous to be voting even this additional amount of money for an Army, the equipment of which we are told, and told sensibly enough, it is premature to discuss. I hope that we will be discussing it when the main Estimate comes before us.

Under Section Y, the Minister told us he was setting up a bureau to write history. For many years I have been pressing him to set up a bureau of a different kind, one that would be the soldiers' friend, to whom ex-members of the national forces could go with their difficulties, so that they would have expert assistance to help them to get their rights in regard to the regulations and laws that existed for them and, outside their rights, to assist them in a human way to link themselves back into ordinary civilian life. It could help them with regard to employment for themselves or their children and with regard to housing. It is tragic and disgraceful to-day to meet ex-members of the National Army, men of 47 or 50 years of age, with families just growing up, who have completed 24 or 25 years' service, some of them occupying Army residences on Army premises and unable to leave them, as they cannot get housing accommodation anywhere else. They find themselves, with all their moneys due to them from the Army held up, with an Army bailiff, as it were, standing at their door, to push them out into the street or, if they cannot leave, to get them to sign documents saying that they are refusing to obey the Army authorities' request to get out. There is quite a number of families in that condition here in this city.

There are hundreds of men who gave 25 years of their lives in a National Army and now, having finished their services, are unable to find work. Perhaps they could get work if there were some kind of machinery on the edge of the Army to which they could go and which would see that men of their character, ability and training would be shepherded into work which must be available for them. We cannot have any kind of national self-respect if we take up the attitude that, when men spend their lives in an army, under the regulations and conditions prescribed by an Irish Government, they are going to go out on a paltry pension, some of them on pension rates fixed before the value of money was deflated so enormously during this war. They find themselves now with a family not yet reared up, a responsibility on their hands, in very difficult economic and social circumstances here, unable to get work or housing of any kind.

I think it is typical of the kind of futile self-adulatory spirit in which we approach some of our past history that the Government are able to set up a bureau and get a committee round it to write up our history, while the men who helped to make that history are coming out of the Irish Army, broken down in spirit and without hope, with distracted wives and children dependent on them and no chance of getting a home at all. I plead again with the Minister, if he has any pride or wants to take any pride in what a bureau may do to write the history of our Army, to do something to-day that will prevent our putting a postscript to that history to say that the men who, after the formation of this State, gave their full lives to the Army, found that they came out into a State which could not provide them with work or even with a helping hand to get over their difficulties.

I know it is difficult for the Minister for Defence to find himself with families living in the barracks, in the case of men who have now left the Army. However, they are families of a particular type, whose men have given valiant work to the Army of to-day and the Army of yesterday. At any rate, there ought to be some kind of machinery, or some representative of the Defence Forces or of the Government, to deal with them in some kind of human way and let them feel they were not outcasts on the side of our streets.

Major de Valera

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but there are some matters which the last speaker raised upon which I would like to comment briefly. On the question of purchasing, there is a sum allotted for warlike stores, which the Minister says is ammunition. The last speaker referred to statements that have been made that it was premature to commit ourselves to an equipment programme at this stage. These two things are not conflicting. We went into this matter in another debate recently. An equipment programme for the Army of the future, in conjunction with an organisation programme, is at this stage premature, for the reasons that have been given. I think I gave some reasons myself in the debate on the last Temporary Defence Forces Bill. That fact is so and that fact remains.

In the future, it will be the Minister's inevitably difficult task to decide at what stage it is right to embark on an organised equipment and organisation programme and to proceed with it.

I think we are agreed that it is premature to embark on that particular stage for the moment. Now, that is so, but, as against that, one has to consider that in this interim period while the Army staffs are, so to speak, assembling and reorganising themselves at the end of the emergency and in the post-war period, the Army has to carry on. It has to be maintained as a working organisation and with such, equipment as it has got. The change-over to new equipment, if that should be decided upon, will have to be dove-tailed with the old.

Deputies, I am sure, are aware, and the last speaker should be aware, that in regard to certain equipment we have been equipped with weapons that are in danger of becoming obsolete from the manufacturing point of view. In that case there is a very specific problem for a country like this which does not manufacture its ammunition. I think that the purchase of this ammunition is to be justified on the grounds that it is necessary to keep the equipment which we have effective and useful until such time as a comprehensive equipment programme for the future is drawn up and put into effect. That ammunition is necessary for training and for other such purposes. In regard to our artillery weapons, for instance, a lot of that ammunition is not, I understand, being manufactured any more. Therefore, it is highly desirable that our Army should have this purchase in order to carry on through the interim period. It does not affect the general argument at all, as to the prematureness of a general equipment programme at this stage.

I want, in the first place, to express my astonishment at the interest which Deputy Mulcahy has developed in the welfare of the Army, in his suggestion that the members of it are being more or less thrown aside and being forgotten. I would like to remind him that the pensions which were given to the Army in 1937—pensions which were not given during the Deputy's period as a member of a former Government—have been increased on a number of occasions. The pay of soldiers and the allowances to their wives and children have been increased on two occasions, and increased considerably during the last two years. With regard to the Deputy's remarks about the Bureau of Military History and the men that, he suggests, we should be looking after rather than worrying about a military history, he knows—I do not think I need enumerate them—all the things that we have done for the men in question, not only 1916 men, but men who fought during the Black-and-Tan period. The Deputy must also be fully aware of the fact that we arranged that men, who were unable to give proof of sufficient service to the Pensions Board to enable them to receive a pension, could be considered for a special allowance by reason of the fact that they had service which was not regarded as active service, but yet which was regarded as service. The result is that, far from throwing these men on the roadside, any man who is in a position in which he is incapacitated and unable to work and make a living for himself can receive, if he is single, £78 a year, and if he is a married man he can receive £97 10s. 0d.

I spoke of the men who were leaving the National Army after full years of Army service.

I know this from my experience of Deputy Mulcahy, that, if I were to bring in a pensions Bill to give the men that he is talking about £5 a week, he would not regard that as sufficient. I know that he divided the House no less than 13 times on a Bill which I brought in here to improve the conditions for soldiers. When the Deputy's Party was the Government they gave 26/- to the men for whom the Deputy is now shedding tears. When I brought in a measure to give them 42/-, and not 26/-, the Deputy divided the House no less than 13 times in order to show his desire for the welfare of these men, and he then wanted more money. If it were possible to dole out money in the way that we would all like the Deputy would have another tune to play.

That is the position in regard to the Deputy's desire to lend aid to these men. He also spoke about having a soldier's friend. I do not know what he means by a soldier's friend, whether he wants to have someone like a wet nurse waiting on these men, but the Deputy must not be aware of the fact that we have established at the Department of Defence an office to which men are invited to come and explain their difficulties. They have come in hundreds to do so. The Deputy is unaware of that fact. I am forced to the conclusion that his interest in these men is not real. It is rather for the purpose of standing up in this House and of opposing anything that we bring in. The Deputy literally interprets the word "opposition" to mean opposition to everything and anything that we bring into this House, whether it is good, bad or indifferent. That is the attitude which the Deputy takes up in regard to most of the Bills and matters which are discussed here.

At the end of the period of the emergency, we went to the trouble of printing a booklet and of sending the Deputy a copy of it. It carried all the information that any soldier's friend could give. It gave every particle of information that any man could require if he was looking after his own interests. I do not know what the Deputy wants beyond that. The Deputy went on then and talked about the cost of the Army. Actually, the cost here covers this—that we were carrying 11 officers and 411 N.C.O's more than we anticipated in the original Estimate.

Will the Minister give the increase?

The Bureau of Military History was not established, as the Deputy misinformed the House, to write military history. I am afraid that he is not taking the interest one would imagine he would take in the matters that are being discussed in this House. If the Deputy was listening to the statement I made, he would not make such a wild, rambling suggestion as that this bureau was set up to write military history. They could not do it. What they have been set up to do is to collect and arrange material so that historians of the future will be able to write military history. They hope to collect that material from all possible sources. I am looking forward to help from the Deputy and his Party with regard to some of that material.

It does not look as if the Minister was.

Why not? Is it because I am refuting some statements he made? Surely the Deputy will not let that interfere with his patriotic duty.

I am referring to what has appeared in the Press with regard to the bureau.

I do not know what the Deputy means by that. The bureau is composed of reputable gentlemen. If the Deputy read the information in the newspapers he would see that there is an advisory committee established of gentlemen of high qualifications. I do not know that anyone would object to a single person on that committee. I would be rather surprised if I heard any suggestion that any of these people was not fully competent to deal with the task which they have agreed to carry out.

Deputy Cosgrave talked about an injustice that had been committed by the Minister for Defence. He may not have called it an injustice, but he said that the Minister was unjust in forcing men out of the Army on the plea that they could get work. The people to whom we appealed to get into employment were not members of the regular Army or regular officers. They were men who had come in from patriotic motives to lend their aid to the State in the difficult period we were passing through. Large numbers of them left employment and came into the service of the State and many of them had positions to which they could go back. We made an appeal to that type of individual to get back to his employment. We could not in any circumstances have appealed to a regular soldier or officer to leave the Army and get back into employment, because his employment was naturally the Army.

I am rather surprised to find that this matter is being raised at the present time, because the individuals concerned are all members of the regular Army whose pensions are based on the pay they were receiving. The position is that when we decided to raise the pay of the Army as an added attraction to secure recruits, whatever individuals joined the Army and received that pay would be entitled to these increased rates of pension. Automatically, any person who remained in the Army subsequent to the date fixed would also be entitled to receive that pension. The individuals who left after that particular date, I think it was 1st September, were entitled to the increased rate. Those who left before that date were only entitled to the old rate.

Some of them who left before that had reached the maximum pension period. They had served 21 years.

Even so, they got a pension based on the 21 years they served, even though they had served for a period over and above the period for which they had joined. We retained the services of a number of men for a longer period than that for which they had joined. During the emergency we held them by compulsion.

They are all right, but the man who had served 21 years and who retired prior to 2nd September last only gets a pension at the old rate. If a man who had 21 years' or more service retired any time after 2nd September last he gets a pension at the increased rate.

Yes, but you cannot overcome that difficulty. There is a border line there. The date is the 1st September.

That is the point. The trouble is that some date had to be fixed, but no warning was given to the men who retired before that date. They did not get any warning that that was to be the date fixed.

It was not necessary to give it. If the man had service in excess of the period that he was entitled to serve, he should have gone any time after the 11th May, 1945, the date on which demobilisation began, and a large number of them did. A large number of men appealed to be released from service, and where they were able to secure employment or where there were certain family conditions, these men were released immediately. On the other hand, other men with families appealed to be allowed to remain in the Army and these men, perhaps through luck or something else, did better than the others. That is all it was. The point is that we cannot do anything about it, because if you are going to fix any other date you will have to go right back to 1937 and you will have to admit large numbers of men who went out since that period. Not only would it have that effect, but a number of other Departments would be affected as a result of whatever we might do. From that point of view, it is out of the question for us to do anything.

In regard to the question of meals, the hours are the old-established ones for meal times. During the emergency I know that a meal was always available at 7 or 8 o'clock made up from the surplus rations. I could not say whether that is continuing or not. But there are canteens available which have been very greatly improved both from the point of view of accommodation and the meals which are supplied. As the Deputy knows, they are supplied at a ridiculously cheap rate. A man who wants to have an extra meal late in the evening can go into one of these comfortable canteens and get a meal for a couple of pence. I cannot say whether the system which was operative during the emergency still operates or not.

It could hardly continue now with the rationing.

I am afraid it could not, because it really should not have been operating. If it is, it is all to the good and I can assure you I will not object.

The Minister indicated that there is an establishment at Parkgate Street where soldiers can make inquiries. Will he give us the name of the officer to whom a man may be sent, or the name of the particular department?

Any man going to General Headquarters, Parkgate Street, will immediately be brought by the soldier there to the ex-soldiers' section. They are going there every day. The officer in charge of the section is Mr. Brady.

Vote put and agreed to.
Votes 2, 24, 47, 54, 58, 6, 26 and 63 reported and agreed to.
Top
Share