Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1945

Vol. 29 No. 22

Public Business. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1945—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

The Bill, in the first place, makes the customary annual provision for the continuance of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts in force for another year-in the present instance, up to the 31st March, 1946. The necessary provision is contained in Section 2.

Section 3 and 4 are designed to enable suitable men of the emergency and reserve classes to re-enlist for service in the post-emergency regular Army. The effect of these sections is to include the period of service rendered during the emergency—or, in the case of a reservist, the period since he last reported for permanent service—as portion of the new term of enlistment, thus making such emergency service pensionable in the event of the man concerned continuing to serve in the Army for the period entitling him to a pension. It is felt that this provision, taken in conjunction with other proposals, which I hope to be able to announce before long, will attract into the post-emergency Army many suitable men who have acquired valuable training during the past four years and who desire to make the Army their career. The conditions under which suitable temporary and reserve officers will be offered commissions in the regular Army and under which vacancies in the reserve will be filled, will also be made known as soon as possible.

The main effect of Section 5 is that a man enlisted for general service—as distinct from service in a particular corps—may be transferred from one corps to another unless he has had 10 years' or more service in a corps. If he has had 10 years' service he will be transferred only if he himself consents. Up to the present a soldier, on being appointed to a corps, has, except for a few specific reasons, enjoyed a general right to remain in it. In our Army, however, the conditions of service are so uniform that a transfer from one corps to another does not, generally speaking, entail hardship, and the problem which will arise from demobilisation and the revision of Army Establishments may make it necessary for the military authorities to be free to effect transfers, subject to the proviso which I have already mentioned—that a man will not be transferred from a corps if he has served in it for 10 years or more.

Section 6 is merely an amendment of Section 55 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1940. That section provides that in court proceedings, a Defence Force Gazette, printed and published by the Stationery Office, will be evidence of the status, ranks and appointments of the officers listed in it. The present Gazette is published in the Department of Defence and this position will continue for some time. The purpose of the amendment is to make the Gazette admissible in evidence, even though it is not published by the Stationery Office.

Section 7, which is another amending section, is rendered necessary by the fact that it is no longer proposed to publish in Iris Oifigiúil such matters as promotions and reversions of officers. These are purely domestic matters, so to speak, and their publication in Iris Oifigiúil is administratively unnecessary. They will in future be promulgated in General Routine Orders for the information of the Defence Forces.

As the House is aware, the character of this Bill makes it necessarily an urgent measure. We usually have to leave its introduction to the last possible moment because of the possibility of the Army authorities requiring, as in this case, to insert an amendment at the latest stage. I trust that the House will, as on previous occasions, find it possible to deal with the various stages as expeditiously as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Quirke

Now, I suggest, Sir.

Mr. Hayes

I see no objection to taking all the stages now, but I do not regard it as a precedent. This is a Bill which is almost on a par with the Expiring Laws Bill. There are certain conditions to be fulfilled and the only matter that might be discussed is demobilisation. That might be reserved for another stage. I see no objection, therefore, to taking all the stages now.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Duffy

I am not objecting to take the Final Stage now, but I want to raise one point. It seems to me that a number of men are likely to be discharged from the Army in the near future and some attention should be given to the circumstances under which they are discharged. Questions of priority will arise. No doubt the Minister has thought over the matter and given it his attention, but it would assist people who have to deal with inquiries concerning subjects of this kind if the Minister were, as soon as possible, to make known his proposals in regard to demobilisation—in other words, whether he has in contemplation the preparation of a scheme or programme by which there will be set up a system of priorities to ensure that people who have jobs to resume will be demobilised before those who have no immediate prospect of appointments. I do not want to press the matter any further. I merely want to draw attention to it, in the hope that the Minister may be able to say something to indicate what plans have been made for the future.

Mr. Quirke

I am inclined to agree with Senator Hayes that we have not reached the time for discussing the question of demobilisation, and, while I agree, generally speaking, with the attitude of Senator Duffy—that is, to go as far as possible into the circumstances of the soldiers as to whether they will be retained or demobilised when the time comes—it is not a good thing to start off on the assumption that the emergency is ended. I think it is very far from being ended. A discussion of this kind is premature, and it should be postponed. There will be plenty of material for a further discussion at any time.

Mr. Hayes

May I ask a question? This is a point upon which I often find men in the Army worried. I read what the Minister said in the other House. He said that where a man has a job to go to he will be facilitated by the Army authorities in every way. I think that is correct?

Mr. Traynor

That is correct.

Mr. Hayes

There are men in the Army since the beginning of the emergency and we might regard that period as practically over, from a military point of view. Presumably a gratuity will be paid to these men at the end of the emergency. Is such a man to be debarred from getting a gratuity at the end of the emergency? It seems to me that it would be unfair, from the point of view of common sense, to deprive such a man of a gratuity if he secures reinstatement in his employment when the emergency army is finally disbanded. I use the words "emergency army" advisedly, because I would like to get the Minister's view on it.

Mr. Baxter

Before the Minister replies, I wish to call attention to another aspect of the matter which has been brought under my notice. An employer informed me that employees of his, who joined up at the beginning of the emergency, have communicated with him as to what position they were in in regard to the resumption of work. He said that he had not yet replied, because he did not know where he stood. Since then he has taken on other employees who have filled the places of the men who had joined the Army, and he wants to know what he is going to do. There is a considerable number of cases like that, and it is important that the Minister would clarify the position of employers. My view was that they were under an obligation to take back former employees, but I have not enough information on the matter. I hope that the Minister will try to clear it up.

Mr. Traynor

As I explained in the other House, the plan and scheme of demobilisation have been under consideration, both by the Army authorities and by the Government, for quite a considerable time, and I can assure Senator Duffy that it will be in accordance with his own views—that is, that demobilisation will take place in a proper and ordered manner. There will be priorities based on various things: service, married men against single men, and so on. These have been thoroughly examined and recommended by the Army authorities, who are pretty expert on the matter, and who have given very much attention to schemes operating in other countries as well.

In reply to Senator Hayes, in the case which he mentioned, the man would be entitled to whatever emoluments will be granted in the near future in respect of men who are being demoblised from the Army. In regard to Senator Baxter's remarks, I should point out that there is already legislation which prescribes the rights of the individual soldier and of the employer. Both sides are protected. Some doubt has arisen recently as a result of one or two cases in which the employer was able to prove that he was not in a position to take back an individual who, apparently, in our opinion, was covered by the Act.

It may be necessary to introduce, or produce, new legislation to cover cases in which it is impossible for a man to re-employ a soldier where his business no longer operates. In general, the rights of the men are safeguarded by the Act passed in 1941. Senators can be assured that from the point of view of safeguarding the rights of the individual in the scheme of demobilisation, the soldier will be generously looked after.

Mr. Douglas

I quite agree with what the Minister has stated, but he should bear in mind that there should be a proper system of priority. I do not intend to discuss the matter in detail in any way, but I want to point out that it is not enough to say that a man will be demobilised if he has employment. But what is the position of the employer who has taken on somebody else to replace his former employee who joined the Defence Forces?

Mr. Duffy

I agree with what the Minister said in reply to Senator Baxter regarding the obligation imposed on employers to give back to their former employees their jobs. I am just wondering whether there is machinery for enforcing the provisions of the Act. I have some recollection of complaints being made in different parts of the country that men were unable to enforce their rights. I am wondering who is going to enforce their rights for them.

Mr. Traynor

I am not quite sure whether I grasped the point aright. Is it if the employer refuses to take an ex-soldier back, who is going to fight his case? Well, the soldier will have to fight his own case. If it is one of these types of cases in which there is very little doubt any solicitor will advise the individual as to his rights under the law. If he wins his case the employer will have to pay the costs. We are considering the question of whether additional legislation will not, in fact, be necessary. I do not want to discuss the matter while that legislation is pending.

Mr. Duffy

I am satisfied. That is exactly what I wanted to get.

Mr. Hearne

Is it intended that legislation will be introduced regarding demobilisation?

Mr. Traynor

That is not necessary. There will not be, as far as I know, legislation necessary in respect to demobilisation. That is a natural function which takes place whenever the emergency is deemed to have ended. In that respect I should advise the House that it may be some time before that operation begins. It may be some considerable time before demobilisation begins, and when it does begin it may extend over quite a long period. There will no doubt, in due course, be produced a White Paper which, I take it, will be laid on the Table of both Houses. Arising out of that, I suppose it will be possible to have a discussion.

Mr. Hearne

That is really what I wanted, an opportunity for discussion. We will be given that?

Mr. Kyle

It is very gratifying to hear from the Minister that the Government are contemplating legislation along the lines suggested by Senator Duffy, namely, that the workpeople, that is the ex-soldier, will be ensured employment with previous employers. We hope when that legislation is before this House it will be received sympathetically, and that those who are being discharged will be protected. I am sure it is very gratifying to the House—it is very gratifying to me—to know that the Government are contemplating bringing in legislation of this desirable type.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister says that where a soldier is in doubt as to his rights he has to go to a solicitor. May I put it that this is a problem for which it may be very desirable to have some kind of office or central authority with a representative of the employer, a representative of labour and of the Minister which would give soldiers advice about their rights? That is something that the Minister might consider instead of leaving men in the position they are in.

Mr. Traynor

I am only telling the House what the position is. Senator Hayes is actually anticipating what we are looking into in the legislation that is pending.

Mr. Summerfield

I want to mention two points in respect of men who are incapacitated. There is the man who receives injuries and is only able to do a particular type of work. That is a case that has actually arisen. The other point is the availability of work. I know one case which was already heard in the courts where the firm were only too eager to take the man back, but by reason of their present position they no longer had work for him. In addition he was not physically capable of performing the work. I mention these things because there is no employer who does not wish that every man in the forces should be reinstated in at least the position he had before he left. The Minister knows that the case I mentioned went against the soldier.

Mr. Traynor

The case that the Senator mentioned is the one I had in mind. The case of men physically incapacitated is one which was safeguarded some time ago by the Army Pensions Act which this House passed in 1943. The soldier will be safeguarded when, in fact, physically incapacitated as a result of military service. I should say that by way of appeal to employers it has been found necessary to discharge certain members of the Army because of some minor incapacity. For instance, might have tender feet, or corns, or something like that. He is not found capable of marching and he is discharged. The only grounds upon which that can be done are that he was medically unfit. Unfortunately one or two cases have been brought to my notice where employers have tried to take advantage of the certificate that he is medically unfit, whereas the man is probably in many respects more fitted than when he left his employment by reason of his good training, the good food and the open-air life. In one or two cases advantage has been taken of that certificate, and I appeal to employers to deal with the matter more sympathetically. Unless a man is really incapacitated he should be reemployed.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.