Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 1947

Vol. 33 No. 11

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1947.—Committee and Final Stages

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

This is the operative section of the Bill. I intimated to the Minister on the last occasion that I proposed to raise again on this section the matters I then put before him. I hope that, since then, he has had an opportunity of considering in greater detail and appreciating the point which is at issue. I can understand the Minister's argument as regards the date on which the increases in pay and pension are to become operative. Obviously, there must be some date and I entirely agree with him that, no matter what date is chosen, on the general issue there would be room for discussion as to whether the increases should be payable before or after that date and whether the persons concerned were being generously treated or otherwise.

However, that is not the case I made. The case I made was that the only relevant and fair date to take was the date the Minister and the Government chose, which was, I think, 6th May, 1945. That was the date upon which the Minister and the Government introduced their scheme of demobilisation, the date upon which they decided it should be published that the Army was to be cut down after the war had passed and that it was to be cut down according to a certain schedule. That was the date on which the Minister and the Government urged soldiers to get out of the Army and into civilian employment. That is the sole, net issue. So far as I am concerned, the sole issue is that the Minister should not choose a date for one purpose and another date for a different purpose. The Minister determined, early in 1945, that men who could find employment should be pressed to take up that employment. I suggest to the Minister that the date when he took up that stand is the date from which all pensions should be calculated. As I explained to the House on the last occasion—I do not want to weary members by repetition—the difference is approximately between 25 per cent. and 33? per cent. Those members of the Army who stayed in the Army and got out between 1st September, 1946, and 1st November qualified for pensions at the increased rates. But those members who, between May, 1945 and September, 1946, followed the advice given to them by the Government, who followed the Government's own request, have been penalised by having to accept pensions at a rate that is lower, by between a quarter and one-third, than that which is given to those who stayed on to the bitter end, even though urged by the Government to get out as soon as they could. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable line to take.

If the Minister considers it in that way and considers that the reason these people got out was his own action, he will even now change the basis of operation in relation to any men whose contract was expiring during the war but who were held on and who were told then, when the demobilisation paper was issued, to go back into civilian employment.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

As I informed the Senator on the last occasion when we were discussing this Bill, pensions can only be made payable on the basis of the remuneration which the individual receives and on no other basis that I know of. It may be true enough to say that Government urged members of the forces to leave the Army if it was possible to secure employment—and I think everyone will agree that that was good and desirable advice.

Mr. Sweetman

Agreed.

Mr. Traynor

If we refer to the regulations which were published in the White Paper, it will be found that it was only a case of urging and not of forcing an individual to leave the Army. We were urging individuals who could find suitable employment to get going while the going was good. What we said in paragraph 59 of the White Paper regulation was:—

"As soon as all concerned have had an opportunity of considering the question of further service in the light of the regulations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the demobilisation will commence—subject, of course, to the overriding consideration of national security—of those who apply for release from service on the grounds that they desire to resume their studies or that they have employment awaiting them. When the members of that group have been released, all others who apply for release will be demobilised, irrespective of whether or not they have employment awaiting them."

Paragraph 60 then went on to say:—

"The release will then follow in due course of all who have not permanent engagements in the Defence Forces as well as non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent force who have completed long-service engagements and are eligible for discharge on pension. Demobilisation of these categories will be the subject of constant liaison between the Department of Defence and the Department of Industry and Commerce."

During that demobilisation, no distinction was made between the married and the non-married personnel, except in the case of those who were mentioned in the first sentence of paragraph 60. The result was that, unless a man actually applied to leave the Army, he was not demobilised. For instance, if any individual made an application to his commanding officer and said that he desired to continue serving until the latest possible date, then, if he was what was described as a suitable soldier, he was allowed to continue serving until the end of the period of demobilisation—which was calculated to take roughly about 12 months, as we were demobilising men at the rate of 2,000 per month.

Our difficulty was not the question of releasing men, but that of giving priority to those who were anxious to get out and to settle back into civilian life. We had the type of individual who had not steady employment to go out to, such as the regular soldier who had been in the Army for quite a long number of years. We did urge these men, and said that, if they could find suitable employment, we would release them and allow them to take up whatever employment was available. However, I have had the matter examined and it would be quite impossible to make any other arrangement than the arrangement which has been outlined in the Bill itself.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not understand at all why the Minister says it would be quite impossible. If he wishes to imply that it would be impossible as a matter of machinery, I cannot agree at all. As he says, it is perfectly correct that men were not put out unless they applied to leave. The Minister himself admits that the Government urged them to apply if they had employment to take up. I very deliberately refrained from making any comparison on this section until I had heard what the Minister had to say in the light of his consideration of it since last week; but to show that the Minister is wrong when he says it is impossible, I must make the comparison with what was done elsewhere.

The British Government brought in a demobilisation scheme. They published a White Paper rather on the same lines as ours and they subsequently published notification to the Army personnel that there would be increased rates of pay, which would have effect from a future date; and in the same notification they published the announcement that the rates of pension would also be increased, and increased retrospectively to the date on which they had issued the White Paper, so that any man who had gone out of their Army, as a result of being urged to do so by the Government, would not suffer by way of a decrease of pension. It does appear to me that, if it is possible to operate in one country, it should be possible to operate in another. Therefore, if the Minister means "impossible" in the sense of machinery, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. Of course, if he means that he is not going to do it—well, he is the Minister, not I.

Mr. Traynor

It means merely that the repercussions which would follow the amendment of this particular question would be such that innumerable other pensioners of various descriptions would be so affected.

I am not prepared, of course, to do something that is going to have that type of repercussion. If, for instance, we had mentioned in our White Paper the fact that we were going to increase pay, then, of course, automatically individuals would have been entitled to it from the 11th May, the date on which we agreed demobilisation was to begin. We did not do that, and therefore the increase in Army pay has nothing to do with the demobilisation. The increase in pay was designed to attract, into what I might almost describe as a new Army, the type of personnel that we were anxious to attract into the Defence Forces. That pay had no relation, good, bad or indifferent, to the people the Senator has been discussing, because they had the calculated rate of pay upon which their pensions were based. The men who served from the 2nd September also had the calculated rate of pay on which their pensions would be based. That is how I see the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

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

Mr. Sweetman

On that question, there is one other thing I want to say on this Bill. I do so because I do not want what the Minister stated on the last day to go without being dealt with. He seemed to suggest—I am not saying that he did so deliberately or anything like that—that I was alleging that the medical boards did not consider these disability pension cases sympathetically. That was not the case I made at all. The case I made was that, on the existing law, the onus of proof rests on the soldier who claims to be disabled. I am quite satisfied that the law as it stands is sympathetically worked out and considered. I do suggest, however, that, having regard to the difficulties in these cases, it is a wrong basis for the law to set. I suggest that the correct basis for the law would be that, where a man is passed fit at an Army medical examination, if he subsequently becomes unfit during service, or during the emergency, it should be the business of the State to prove that his disability did not arise out of his service. In other words, I am suggesting that the burden of proof in a particular case should be thrown on the State and not on the man. It would, I think, in all the circumstances be fairer to look at the matter in that way. If that were the law it would work out in a far more equitable manner than it does at present. I do not want to let this matter go without mentioning it, because I am not suggesting and did not suggest that the boards did not consider these cases sympathetically on the existing law. It is the law and the burden of proof which it imposes that I suggest should be changed. I am not at all suggesting that the attitude of the board should be changed.

Mr. Traynor

If I in any way suggested such a thing as that which the Senator has mentioned, I certainly never intended it. In fact, I have no recollection whatever of saying anything of the kind, or of suggesting that the Senator had deliberately stated that the board was unsympathetic. I do not remember having said anything of the sort. If I did, I want to withdraw it.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister did not say it. It was only that such an implication might be taken from his words.

Mr. Traynor

With regard to the points that have been raised by the Senator, it must be presumed that the sympathy of the Army authorities is with the ex-soldier. In the first instance, when a man is medically boarded out with some complaint which makes him unfit for military duty, the Army medical authorities examine the individual and give a decision as to whether his complaint has arisen out of service or not. That record goes to the board. At some subsequent date the ex-soldier makes an application for disablement pension. The pensions medical board then examines the individual as well as the history of his case before making a decision. I do not think it is wrong to make an applicant prove his case. I think it is highly desirable that an individual who is making an application for money from the State should be made prove that he is entitled to it. In spite of that, again, however, the medical authorities on the pensions board go out of their way to help the individual to prove that his disability was attributable to his military service. If he can prove that, he is entitled to whatever pension the board is prepared to grant him. I feel that is a reasonably fair method of dealing with an applicant's case. How an individual is going to prove that his disease is attributable to his service is a matter that is beyond me, because from my own experience I can state this: I have seen at a particular date strong, virile individuals in civilian life and in two or three months' time they were suffering from a complete breakdown. If these individuals had been members of the Army their breakdown in health would be ascribed by them to their military service. Therefore, I do not quite understand how the board is to decide that question.

It is on the history that the medical board is able to secure through its own efforts that the decisions are usually made. I think that on the whole they are reasonably fair but of course every applicant who fails in his application is naturally dissatisfied and goes out and advertises the bad break he has been given by the board. This is something that none of us can overcome. As I said the decisions of the board, generally speaking, are reasonably fair.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil