Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1948

Vol. 113 No. 12

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1948—Committee and Subsequent Stages.

Sections 1 to 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Traynor

In the course of the debate on the Second Stage of this Bill, the Minister more or less agreed to look into the case of certain categories of persons who would come within the scope of this section. Last evening, however, when he was concluding his speech, he created the impression in my mind that he was not prepared to give any consideration to the suggestions which I made in the course of my remarks. I would like to point out to the Minister that, to my mind, this decision is a rather serious one, inasmuch as it is creating for the future a position of immunity for any person who is a member of the Defence Forces, and who, in like circumstances, decides to get out of the Army of which he is a member, leave the county and join the forces of some foreign State. I think it would be a rather serious state of affairs if we create a position of immunity for such individuals. It may be that in normal times we have all the machinery necessary for dealing with a person who deserts from the Army.

I would like to point out to the Minister, however, that at the end of the recent emergency Deputies of every Party were receiving communications similar to that received by me. Certainly, to my own knowledge members of my own Party did receive such communications. These letters came from wives and mothers asking for assurances that their husbands or their sons could return to this country, and be assured on their return that no action would be taken against them by the responsible authorities. I discussed this matter with the military authorities at the time, and they assured me that if these individuals came back, as far as the Army was concerned, they would be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. No assurance such as was being sought by these people could be given. The position reached such a stage that in further discussions it was decided that some measure of this kind would be necessary. If an assurance was given which would allow these people to come back in large numbers, the Army authorities felt that they would be engaged in courts-martial for a year or two years in dealing with these cases; it was also suggested that the penalties which would be inflicted, because of the temper of mind and the ideas held in respect of the recent past, would be of a very severe nature. It was eventually decided, therefore, that some method, such as that contained in the measure which we brought in, would be the best means of dealing with this particular aspect of Army life.

In view of what I have said, I appeal, even at this late stage, to the Minister to give some consideration to the suggestions which I have made. I am not asking him to go after everybody who deserted from the Army. There are certain categories, such as he has mentioned himself; there are, for instance, the people to whom calling-up notices were forwarded and who claimed they did not receive them. I think myself that that excuse is a thin one, because it must be remembered that in order to get a calling-up notice the individual has to be at one time or another a member of the Defence Forces. I will go further and point out to the Minister that the person so receiving such a notice would be a person who had over a long period of time been receiving from the State what I describe as a "retaining fee". He would, in other words, be in receipt of a reservist grant—a grant of anything from £9 to £16 per annum. The fact that an individual was receiving this sum of money annually and that at the vital moment of call up he refused to obey the summons is, in my opinion, tantamount to receiving money under false pretences. That is another aspect of the matter to which I would like the Minister to give some consideration.

I think the Minister quoted 756 as the number of regular soldiers who deserted. I am sure that only a very, very small number of those did in fact return but, whatever the number was, they should not now be permitted to avail of vacancies which might be created in any of these sections of State employment, such as county councils, borough councils or corporations. I do not agree with the notional or hypothetical case which the Minister made here yesterday in regard to some individual who may or may not have existed; if that individual comes within the category to which I have referred, in reply to the Minister's challenge, when he asked us was there any Deputy over here who would in such circumstances demand that this penalty should be inflicted, I would say "yes." I stand over that because I feel that any man who enters into a contract with the State and at a moment of stress or danger decides to clear out is not worthy of consideration. I would ask the Minister at least to go as far as he undertook to go in his statement on the Second Reading of this Bill; that is, to consider some ways or means of dealing with the categories to which I have referred. I do not ask him to go after these in any punitive way. I merely ask him to ensure that future Governments and Army authorities charged with the task of enforcing discipline will not find the situation made too easy for any person who makes up his mind to desert the ranks of his own Army in a time of danger.

Mr. O'Leary

I wish to say something on this matter as I had a question addressed to Deputy Traynor when he was Minister for Defence on behalf of those men. A number of those men left the Army because of the better separation allowances that were offered to men in other armies. Some joined up because they wanted to be in the fight. I think it is very bad policy, now in the year 1948, when men want to return to their own country to have them penalised. We have deserters from some other armies here and enjoying jobs outside public bodies. I would ask the Minister to wipe out those penalties now that the emergency is over. Making provision for their families was the cause of a lot of them going away. I appeal to the ex-Minister to allow those men back to their wives and families. He did allow their return on condition that they got no employment under local authorities. That was the penalty the ex-Minister put on these people. I would ask the present Minister to withdraw the regulation and allow those men to get employment in the country and live with their wives and families. I do not think that they should be looked upon now as real deserters. They are as good Irishmen as people who remained at home.

Mr. Davern

That is a slander on the men of the Army.

Mr. O'Leary

There were men who were prepared to go out and fight, seeing here that there was going to be no fight.

Mr. Aiken

That is a slander on the Army, a Chinn Chomhairle.

Mr. O'Leary

It is no slander. We were a neutral country and we knew there was going to be no fight. That was well understood. These Irishmen have the fighting blood and wanted to be in the real fight, and I ask the Minister not to penalise them. To debar them from employment on relief work under a local authority is, I think, very drastic. We have relief works going on in the towns, and are these men to be deprived of work.

Mr. Traynor

Certainly, if a man is a deserter.

Mr. O'Leary

And let him live on home assistance, is that your policy?

Mr. Traynor

Yes.

Mr. O'Leary

And let him remain on home assistance. I think that that would be wrong. I think we ought withdraw the regulation which deprives these men of the right to live in their own country, now that we are at peace. Some of the men who deserted will never return. They have got good employment in other lands. Unfortunately, some of them have returned because their wives and families are at home and I do not think it is right to deprive them of employment. The only thing I regret is that we have not plenty of work for all men. Even the men who served here—the majority of them—are now working in British coal mines.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is getting away from this section.

Mr. O'Leary

It is but they had to go away although they had served this State. At the present time the local authorities are not giving much preference to ex-Army men. I know men who served the State and they cannot get a job on housing. They are not getting preference from employers and there is a great agitation going on.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on Section 8.

Mr. O'Leary

I think the Minister should withdraw the regulation.

Mr. Davern

I rise to refute the statement made by Deputy O'Leary that the men who deserted from the Army during the emergency were as good Irishmen as those who remained at home. I do not think there is anybody in this country who would stand over such a statement. It is a foul slander on men who made sacrifices in the interests of the country. I think they should not be allowed to be slandered in this House by putting them in the same category as men who ran away to fight for another country. I hope the Deputy will withdraw that statement.

Mr. O'Leary

Not at all, you withdraw yours.

Mr. Davern

The red coat spirit of your ancestors.

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

I understand that it was said somewhere that only providence can measure humans and I certainly am not going to step in between the two Deputies to measure up their relevant values as humans with all their strengths and all their weaknesses. In connection with this particular section, Section 8 and the removal of continuing disabilities, I want Deputy Traynor, in particular, to accept this from me, that on the introduction of this Bill I myself suggested to the Deputy that it might be possible to segregate these people into classes, regulars and others and I gave an assurance to the Deputy that I would have that looked into. Judging by the Deputy's observations just now it would appear to me that he assumes that I have not had that looked into. I want the Deputy now to accept a clear assurance from me that before I left the premises that night I made arrangements to have all that gone into very fully and very comprehensively the following morning.

As far as keeping the assurance to have the whole thing gone into as thoroughly and as completely as a Department is capable of doing it, I had that done. I had it done without undue delay, and the advice I got and the material made available to me—I think the Deputy is peculiarly knowledgeable on that aspect of it—was to the effect that there were so many various categories and classifications that the administrative task of deciding into what particular class or category or grade any particular deserter would fall would make the administration of the thing so impossible that the person sitting in judgment on every individual case would be the Minister in person. The Deputy held that responsibility for a great number of years, and I think he will agree with me that whatever has to be done should be done through Parliament and discretion in matters so important as this should not be vested on the shoulders of any particular individual to take a decision on each case when and if it arose. I want to assure the Deputy that I share his view that the offence of desertion is a particularly serious one. It is one of the most serious offences that could be committed by anybody in uniform. If he thinks that in this proposal of mine, this particular section, there is any intention, either directly or by implication, to grant any sense of immunity to soldiers who may contemplate such a course in future, then I would be the last to put down such a section.

I ask the Deputy, however, to remember that the original Defence Forces Act is still there carrying all the penalties for desertion that are common to all or most armies. There is not a comma in that particular Act altered. But I am in the same position as the Deputy was two years ago when he told us in the course of his remarks that he was standing over the Defence Forces Act with all the penalties, imprisonment and all the rest; that he got letters from mothers, from wives, from sisters and from his colleagues in his Party and other Deputies asking him not to inflict the full pound of flesh; that if those men came home he should waive the threat of imprisonment. Like a good Christian and a person with a human heart, he listened to all those representations and he agreed to waive the ordinary, normal military penalties. I would not accuse him, or did not accuse him, of granting immunity to soldiers in future to desert or encouraging the really serious crime of soldiers deserting from the colours. He did a natural human act and he did it when the war was passed and in the spirit of a man saying: "Let the dead past bury its dead; let us not carry on this for ever."

That was the Deputy's action in 1946. He was merely faced then with putting a man, say, for a month or six weeks into jail, where the man would get his bed and his three meals a day. But he remitted all the normal military penalties and he substituted other impositions of a continuing kind. Do not let the Deputy, however, having taken that action, turn round to me and say: "You are granting immunity to deserters of the future; you are encouraging them." The first step was taken there and that first step was a right step, a step which I would have taken if I were in the Deputy's position then, and a step that I respect him for taking.

The particular penalties, however, that were imposed instead of the normal military penalties were passing over a military responsibility to a number of civilian bodies, asking the civilian corporations and other bodies throughout the country to deal with military offenders for military offences and to continue to deal with military offenders for military offences over a period of seven years. That particular solution or step was, in my opinion, a mistake. But, at the time that step was taken and in the circumstances of the times in which it was taken, I can understand and appreciate the Deputy's position and the reason why such action was proposed then. He did not want to meet every fellow at the boat and clap him into jail. At the same time, he did not want to say to each of them: "Come back and you are welcome; nothing will happen to you." But, during and over a period, he had, as it were, instead of taking the full step, the intermediate step. It was justifiable at the time and it has continued in operation for three years.

I am now in the same position as the Deputy was two years ago, with appeals on behalf of people who have reached destitution level. Do not let the Deputy ride away with the idea that this is a kind of notional idea of my own. I have had men who were recently of good physique knocking at my hall door, with the clothes hanging off them. Even judging them with the medical eye, I could see all the appearance, not of threatened, but actual starvation. These were people who had left their families behind and came up here to the city to try to get work. They were under the ban of being unemployables, untouchables, for another five years. If the Deputy had the same experience as I had, the feelings of humanity and Christianity that urged him two years ago to remove the normal military penalties from the lives of these men would similarly stimulate him to-day to remove the abnormal civilian penalties which are imposed upon them by the original emergency Order. The fact that that Order was passed, that it was approved, that it continued in existence and in full force for a matter of four years, should satisfy any soldier of to-day or any soldier of the future that there is nobody in this Dáil, no matter what position he occupies or what side of the House he sits upon, who views lightly the crime, the military offence of desertion, and that in future the full military penalties which are still carried there in the Act will operate.

I urge the Deputy to place himself mentally in my position and to think back to the impulses that stimulated him two years ago when he remitted, or failed to exercise, certain penalties. Even though he has the very strongest convictions and feelings with regard to the gravity of the offence committed and the danger of an example being set to future generations of Irish soldiers, nevertheless he held his hand, nevertheless he softened in his attitude and listened to the appeals. He was motivated by charitable, Christian motives. I ask him to think of that period when he had to take a decision and to ask himself if, in the light of changing circumstances, with years having rolled by, if he were back in the old position whether he would not come forward to the Dáil with exactly the same proposals I am coming forward with, namely, we have inflicted enough punishment; we have made it clear to everybody in this generation and in the future that the crime committed by these men is a serious crime and that we will do our utmost to prevent its repetition; but that we will not, in addition to penalising the soldier, continue to penalise the soldier's family.

Mr. Aiken

One of my objections to this section is that, if it passes this House, it is an indication that the House stands by Deputy O'Leary's attitude that one is as good as the other, that the man who deserted the Irish Army during the war was as good as the man who stood by his oath, and who, during all that period, was ready to defend the nation against any attack. I do not believe that one was as good as the other. This nation has a right to be thankful that there were a number of men who took the Army oath and who stood loyally by this country during the war period. It may be that this nation will again find itself in similar circumstances. This Dáil should indicate its belief that the man who stands by his country in the circumstances in which our soldiers stood by it during the last war, is deserving of respect and every help the nation can give him, and the man who deserts is deserving of some mark of disrespect, and of some punishment.

Everything looks very rosy to Deputy O'Leary and others. He can sneer at the people who were prepared to fight for this country, who stayed in the Army, and he can say that they did not want to fight. But even an ordinary second-grade schoolboy who can read can see by the disclosures that were made since the war that the men who undertook to defend this country were undertaking a dangerous and difficult job.

Should this section pass, what will be the situation at the employment exchange where there is a 1916 man, a Black and Tan war medallist, and a deserter, lining up for some employment? Are we going to compel the employment exchange officer to put the deserter at the head of the list for employment if, as we know at the present time, a 1916 man or a man with a small income is a little bit better off than the civilian who gave no service? He is not given priority over them in the list for employment when relief works are being undertaken in a district, but are we going to compel the employment exchange officer to put a group of deserters at the top of the list and say that they must be employed first, before the 1916 men or the Black and Tan war people or the men who served in the Army during the war are considered?

I would object very strongly to that and I urge the Minister to accept Deputy Traynor's amendment to delete this section and thereby mark the determination of the Dáil that we will keep in respect the men who stood by the nation during the war and that we will inflict some punishment on the people who deserted.

Dr. O'Higgins

I agree in the main with the remarks of the Deputy and I would be sorry if he thought or read anything into my remarks that would imply that there was equality in our estimation between the soldier who carried on, who stood by his own country and its flag, and the man who did not do so. I do not think amongst most of us there are two opinions on that point.

What I am suggesting to Deputy Traynor, Deputy Aiken and Deputy Colley is that as between the original Act, the steps taken by Deputy Traynor and the opinions given expression to here, there is no difference of opinion with regard to the gravity of the offence and its seriousness in the past and in the future and the determination of the Dáil to put it down if ever it shows its head again. But Deputy Traynor, in view of the fact that war had passed and that we wanted to settle our minds to organisation for the future, and hopeful that we would be organising in the direction of peace, deliberately and, I believe, correctly, took a certain decision which meant, in effect, remitting all the military penalties normally imposed on deserters and substituting certain civilian penalties. Those certain civilian penalties have remained in being for a couple of years and, I take it, have had a very beneficial effect. But now we are coming to the time when we should consider, in a spirit of charity, remitting those continuing penalties.

I do not think anybody can read into that request any gesture of encouragement to deserters or to soldiers to desert in future. I think clemency, when it is exercised in the right spirit and at the right time, often has a greater preventive effect than continuing the imposition of hardships. What I am asking the Dáil to accept from me in connection with this Bill is not any cleaning of the slate. I am asking them to engage in an act of clemency and, while exercising that clemency, to make it very clear how much each and all of us deplore and condemn the act of desertion. It could very well lead to the death of a nation and I do not think there is any of us in full possession of his senses who at any time or from any position in the House would, by word or action, do anything that might encourage soldiers to engage in such activities in future. In that spirit I ask the Deputy to accept the section as it stands.

Mr. Colley

There might be something in the Minister's plea if all the men who served loyally in the Army and the Old I.R.A. and 1916 men were employed.

Mr. O'Leary

Some of them died in county homes.

Mr. Colley

There was not so much sympathy in his answer a couple of weeks ago when he made the announcement with regard to the 51 people who had been disemployed from the Dublin barracks. When Deputy Burke commented on that action, the Minister had not such a lot of sympathy in his tones. In these circumstances we are being asked now to put those deserters in line for employment with these other men, and if Deputy Aiken's statement is correct, possibly to put them before these men, putting employment clerks in the position that they must put those men first. I, for one, am not prepared to accept that proposal. In the circumstances of the time at which it was passed, the proposal that this disqualification should stand for seven years did not seem excessive. The Minister has made reference to the right time. What is there to show that this is the right time, while the circumstances that I have enumerated exist? I think the time is all wrong and I cannot find any sympathy in my heart for these men, while the position exists, as it undoubtedly does, that I.R.A. men, while the position exists, as it undoubtedly does, that I.R.A. men, particularly 1916 men, and the men who served loyally during the emergency are left without employment. We have unfortunately too many of them looking for work. So far as Deputy O'Leary's plea is concerned, he is overlooking the fact that this disqualification applied only to what one might call public employment but the same men with whom his sympathy lies have unfortunately a much better chance of getting employment than the men in whom I am interested.

Mr. O'Leary

They would not get much from you.

Mr. Colley

They have a much better chance, unfortunately, of getting work with a number of big firms than the men who were loyal during the emergency. Now it is proposed that we should put a further barrier in the way of our own men. I must say that I cannot see the argument for that at all. In spite of all the Minister has said, there is no question that any future Minister for Defence who might have to face an emergency or worse, would be placed in a very difficult position, as any man who wanted to desert would have only to point to what happened the deserters in the last emergency. It would be said: "Oh, they did nothing to us. They prevented us from getting corporation work for a couple of years, and then they took off the ban and we were able to walk into the best jobs. At the same time all the poor fools who had to submit to Army discipline all through the emergency were left walking the streets." Would that not be a nice position for us to be placed in? We have the statement of Deputy O'Leary that one was as good as another. I think it is outrageous that one should have to listen to statements of that kind in this House, that the men who went forward to defend their country and who, in many cases, gave up their jobs, took risks and served to the end loyally, should be to-day told that they were no better than the men who deserted and went off to get better money. We would surely have a nice country if all our young men were of that calibre.

The Minister mentioned that the military punishments that could have been inflicted on these men were taken away and that this provision was put in lieu of them. I do not think that anybody can say that the existing regulation is excessive. I am quite sure that if any of these men had come back and had gone through the ordinary course of facing a courtmartial, they would not have been let down very lightly. It is quite natural to expect that the temper of Army officers towards these men would not have been in any way friendly. I think the punishment that was abolished in that respect was much more severe than any of them could suffer under the existing regulation. This regulation does not prevent them from getting work. It only prevents them from getting public employment. Statements have been made here which would suggest that those men had no earthly chance of getting any work except public work. As I have already stated, they have a much better chance of getting work with some firms than our own people. The Minister apparently was not able to meet the plea put up to him to deal with the worst cases, but in any event if I have to choose between the law as it is and the Bill here, I most certainly will vote in favour of keeping the ban there.

Major de Valera

I should like to ask a few questions of the Minister in connection with this matter. First of all, is this provision designed to legalise the existing position? In other words, are there people already in employment which they are debarred from holding because of these regulations? Secondly, is this provision designed to make way for people in these categories for the future? Are there any definite appointments of that nature envisaged? Otherwise, as I said yesterday, this amendment, brought specifically into the Bill, would seem to be purposeless. I hardly think the Minister would bring in a matter of this sort as a question of general grace. If we have somebody illegally in these appointments, then, as I said yesterday, the question of how they got them is a matter to be looked into, and the people responsible for putting them there should be asked to account. If these people are waiting to get into appointments, the Minister should have regard to the fact that there are a large number of ex-soldiers who are capable of filling these appointments.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That is public appointments?

Major de Valera

Appointments covered by the section. Frankly, I personally would not oppose the Minister too strongly on this, even though I think it is unwise to relax restrictions that have been imposed in order to secure discipline in the Army. I would not oppose the Minister so strongly were it not that I know there are numbers of ex-soldiers who served during the whole of the emergency who have not yet been able to find suitable employment. One of the big problems on demobilisation was to try to get employment for these men. One possibility is that the position is that there are appointments vacant for which these men would be eligible and could secure, and to which they have a prior claim over the class of person considered in this section. The other possibility is that these men in the past have been deprived of appointments which should have been open to them and which they should have secured—and that they have been deprived of them for the benefit of people who defaulted in their national duty.

I do not feel personally vindictive towards these people who are considered in this amendment. I think that there may even be some cases, perhaps cases of hardship, with which one might sympathise. The overriding fact, however, is that the man who served from the beginning and who honoured his engagement to the end, has a claim in all priority to such posts. While there are men in that category as yet unplaced it must be remembered that they have a prior claim. Whether the Minister secures passage of this amendment or not, it is the duty of the Government to see that such appointments continue to be filled by ex-soldiers who discharged their duty. If, in the future, there are appointments available which could be filled by the class of men considered in this amendment then the preference should go to the men who served—and while men who served without a breach of their contract to the nation are available there should be no filling of State appointments or appointments in which the State is interested until the last man of that category is exhausted. Then by all means remove your disability and let others in.

The Minister will have no difficulty in getting personnel. I think his Department has already recognised more than one association that caters for these people. Even in the case of the organised Army Benevolent Fund, which is a completely regularised organisation, well recognised by the State from the beginning, the Minister has only to consult it or the officers' associations to get the names of people eligible for these appointments. It is our duty to see that these ex-soldiers get these appointments. It is on that point, as far as I am personally concerned, more than on any other point that I would join issue with the Minister. I know that he is as anxious as anybody else to help the ex-soldiers and I would urge him, therefore, to have particular regard to my remarks. Whether the section goes through or not I would urge him to ensure that in practice the man who fulfilled his contract, who obtained an honourable discharge at the end, and who is still awaiting employment, will get preference over any man in this particular category.

Dr. O'Higgins

He will get the preference.

Major de Valera

If we could only be sure of that. I hope the Minister will not misunderstand me, but I must say that if that is so I am at a loss——

Mr. O'Leary

The chairman of a county council is over there; he would not give a preference.

Major de Valera

——to understand the purpose of this. I can scarcely think that the Minister would introduce a full section like this on an amending Bill, on general grounds, without some specific problems in view. I may be wrong and if I am I should like the Minister to tell me so. I think, however, that some specific instances of some specific problem must have prompted him to introduce this section —either the fact that already some people have illegally secured employment at the expense of ex-servicemen or else that it is contemplated in the immediate future——

Mr. O'Leary

The Fianna Fáil clubs.

Major de Valera

——to give this type of employment to that type of person. In either case there is something wrong. The previous Government, I think with the approval of the whole House, did make this provision to try to provide for ex-servicemen who had honoured their engagement. If anything has gone wrong in the past then the people responsible for the breach of that should at least be held accountable.

I want to refer to another matter of principle which is involved. One of the great difficulties in maintaining the morale of the Defence Forces and in providing for the ex-soldier arises from the fact that his term of useful service in the Army—be he in the commissioned or in the non-commissioned ranks—terminates at a relatively early age. He must go out on a small pension while he is still a relatively fit man with quite a number of working days, in the civilian sense of the word, available to him. The problem, therefore, is to find employment for him. I know myself that when this problem was being looked into in the Department of Defence with a view to post-war reorganisation it loomed large both for the emergency Army then going out and for the Army of a future date.

Only a very limited number of appointments are open to ex-officers and ex-soldiers—certain appointments in the prison service and so forth. The State is put to the pin of its collar to provide for these men. After the emergency the situation unfortunately became more acute because a large number of public spirited young men volunteered in 1940. Many of them had families and many of them left good jobs to do so. That is not merely a general statement. I personally know of some young men who left good jobs in Dublin in 1940 and accepted soldiers' pay. Sometimes their employers made up the difference. However, these men served until the end of the emergency and they then found that there were changes which virtually threw them on to the street. It is a very difficult problem for the State to solve. Neither the Minister nor the Government has unlimited resources.

All that can be done is to try to reserve the appointments which are directly under the State for men in such categories and then to try and get the co-operation of employers generally. Many complaints have been made that some employers in this State have given preference in the matter of employment to people who were out of the country at that period rather than to people who stayed at home. In these circumstances, is it wise for us to make provision for the category of person who went away? They have been very well looked after in other respects and unfortunately our own men are only all too badly looked after. It is incumbent on us to try and fight for them as far as we can. Fighting all out, we will still be at a disadvantage in trying to do the best we possibly can for them—whether as members of the Government, as Deputies or as private individuals. They will still be handicapped. I would, therefore, renew my plea that the Minister will ensure that in the case of all such appointments a rule will definitely be carried out that the person who served honourably during the emergency will get priority and that steps will be taken to see that if such a bar is legally removed it will not operate in practice to deprive ex-servicemen of an opportunity of getting employment. It raises a very thorny question as to whether those people who have got there illegally should not be removed and the option given to those men who served faithfully. Having regard to all the circumstances, if there is a man who should get a job and a deserter, whether technically or in fact, has already got it, I am not so sure that even at this late date we should not remedy that situation and put in the ex-serviceman.

Mr. O'Leary

If you do that you will have to face a lot of Fianna Fáil appointments.

Major de Valera

Deputy O'Leary is making general statements that he cannot substantiate.

Mr. O'Leary

I can. I will prove it to you.

Major de Valera

We will give Deputy O'Leary an opportunity of making his own speech and then we can answer him. It does not matter one iota who or what individuals were responsible. The last Government tried to provide these protections for ex-service men as far as lay within their power. I am sure the present Administration up to this date have continued along that path.

Mr. O'Leary

They would not give them a vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary must not interrupt.

Mr. O'Leary

They would not give the ex-soldier a vote on the local authorities.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary is absolutely ignoring the Chair. He has no licence to interrupt. I am warning him now.

Mr. O'Leary

I am sorry, but it is hard to listen to these people talking when they would not give a vote to a man looking for a job.

Major de Valera

The last Government did its utmost to see that these people who honoured their contract with the State and fulfilled the obligations they voluntarily undertook would have certain benefits. I understand the present Government is continuing on those lines. My sole interest is to ensure, so far as it is possible to ensure, that these men will have all the benefits of these provisions. By legalising the positon of the people who are not entitled to these benefits I want to ensure that those men who served faithfully will not suffer. That is the case I want to make.

Captain Cowan

For or against?

Major de Valera

I want these ex-servicemen to have priority in all cases even if it entails displacement. If the Minister would give us an assurance on that ground I would not oppose this provision very strongly.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Deputy and the Deputy's colleagues can have as clear an assurance as it is possible for any Minister to give speaking on his own behalf and, speaking, as far as he knows, on behalf of the whole Government. The policy of our predecessors, as far as they could direct, control, or influence local services—that is, local authorities—was to give priority to ex-Army men with a clean discharge. Moreover, they went beyond that, and asked the independent employing authorities to co-operate with the Government in their particular outlook with regard to priority in employment. There has been no departure whatsoever from that outlook with the change of Government. That will continue to be our outlook. If that assurance meets the Deputies, I give it freely.

Major de Valera

I quite appreciate that, coming from the Minister. But our worry is what are the specific cases towards which this amendment is directed. Is the object of it to legalise something that has already happened?

Dr. O'Higgins

It is not. The Deputy was not here when I was speaking. I do not know at the moment of any individual who is illegally or irregularly in employment in defiance of the Act, as it stands. In the course of my remarks I mentioned that individuals on the destitution and on the beggar line had knocked at my hall-door, and I had seen in them physical evidence of starvation. They were under this particular ban. I think it is fair to give them the race even though they are at the end of the queue.

Major de Valera

So long as they take their places in the queue I do not think one can have a very serious objection. Will the Minister, however, give the necessary directions to ensure that when such appointments are going, the organisation is consulted so that ex-servicemen will have an opportunity of entering? Difficulty very often arises from lack of knowledge on the part of people who would be entitled to apply, but who do not get an opportunity of applying in time.

Dr. O'Higgins

In order to make that assurance more effective with regard to the employment of ex-servicemen, within the last week I have given that organisation premises in G.H.Q.

Major de Valera

I know the Minister has been co-operating there. The Minister, however, will appreciate our perturbation with regard to these men. Some of them have suffered disadvantages and, despite everything the State can do, they will continue to suffer.

Captain Cowan

I find it very difficult to remain silent having listened particularly to the last speech. One would think that every conceivable guarantee was given and every effort made by the Government which Major de Valera supported up to last February to find employment for the men who had served in the Defence Forces during the emergency. It is hypocritical for him to come in now and ask for these guarantees from the present Minister after all his experience in the previous Administration, when, as far as the ex-soldiers were concerned, they could go to hell.

Mr. Allen

That is not true.

Captain Cowan

Of course, it is true.

Mr. O'Rourke

It is not a very nice expression and it is not even true.

Captain Cowan

It is true.

Mr. Carter

It is not true, as far as I am aware anyhow.

Captain Cowan

That was the position in the City of Dublin. What employment was provided for them?

Mr. Carter

As much and more than they have now. There was plenty of employment down the country at that particular time.

Captain Cowan

I am concerned only with the City of Dublin. To my knowledge there were in the City of Dublin hundreds of ex-soldiers walking around. What did the previous Government do for them? They had to take the boat to Britain, many of them to join the British forces and many to find employment in British coal mines. Now, members of the Fianna Fáil Party talk about making provision for ex-soldiers. It nauseates me to listen to them. There was no proper arrangement made for the men who served during the emergency. Admittedly, when there was some turf to be cut or some minor relief schemes to be carried out those who served in the Army were given a preference. There were other employments in which the Government had an influence and in which the fact of having served in the Defence Forces was of no help at all to prospective applicants.

Major de Valera

Give us a specific instance.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Major de Valera knows it as well as I do. Recently he spoke to a federation of ex-servicemen. He has spoken on many occasions to that federation. That federation of ex-servicemen was pressing for employment under the Fianna Fáil Government just as strongly as it is pressing for it under the present Government. Let me say that I am not taking the line that this present Government is doing all that they could for the ex-serviceman. They are not doing all they could for the ex-serviceman but I say that it is a sham for a member of the last Government to come in here and pretend that the last Government did everything that they possibly could for the ex-soldier. I object to the nonsense and to all this humbug of trying to make political capital, of trying to fool the fellows outside by saying: "I will put up your case in the Dáil for employment for you."

Mr. Allen

What has this to do with Section 8?

Captain Cowan

It has all to do with Section 8. It is because it has to do with Section 8 that I am dealing with it now. The Minister brought in this Section 8, which is a very simple section, and he asks this Dáil a couple of years after the war is over to mitigate to some extent the penalties that were imposed on those 4,000 soldiers who had deserted from the Regular Army, or from the Reserve, or from some of the volunteer services during the emergency. I do not know how many of those 4,000 are still in the country, how many have left the country or how many are finding employment in Britain or in the British armed forces.

I do not know how many have left their bones in the desert of North Africa, or in the plains of Italy. All I know is that, according to the Minister, there are 4,000 deserters and that now, some years after the war is over, the Minister says to this House there are penalties and restrictions on these men that will prevent them getting relief work which would enable them to give a bite to eat to their children. Many of them might have seven, eight, nine or ten children, and I am prevented by the prevailing conditions from giving relief work to those individuals in order that they may feed their children. That was an appeal that could have evoked sympathy in the breasts of the people who are charitably disposed. We are told about the qualities of mercy, humanity and charity. However, in place of all those ideas we have Deputies getting up in this House and saying, enforce the last letter of the law on these people. Let their wives starve, let their children starve, but enforce the law on them. In my view, that attitude is neither charitable nor is it Christian.

What happened during the emergency? Young boys, many of them only 17 or 18 years—a great many of them only 18—in the flush of enthusiasm rushed to get into the Army. There was no proper time to train them except in matters of drill, musketry, use of arms or what I might call the military elements. They were trained in the military elements. Many of those had not the foggiest idea what desertion was or what it meant. They were called in to sign an attestation paper, and they were asked certain questions. They were in a complete fog, as anybody is, in a strange situation. They were asked to sign their name on the dotted line and they signed it. After a while, for one reason or another— maybe a row with a superior officer, maybe a domestic row with the wife, maybe a falling out with a girl, or a whole lot of these things, it may have been some small offence that was committed of which they were ashamed— they ran across the Border and joined up in the British forces. Many of them might have done that under the influence of drink. They might have wakened up the following morning, and found that they were soldiers in the British Army on the other side of the Border.

That is what happened in a lot of cases and there was no such thing as this deliberate intention with the full knowledge of the consequences and the obligations. There was none of that leaving with the full knowledge that that fact creates the offence of desertion at all. The Minister asks us to be a little humane, a bit charitable, to be as we all profess to be—particularly at election times we shout very strongly about it—and show our spirit of Christianity and then we have the answer, no. No charity in this, no mitigation, no matter who it affects. Let them suffer all the penalties that they incur by the desertion. Let us make that case for no other reason than that we may make a case against the Minister and the Government that they are taking that line to deprive Old I.R.A. men, 1916 men from the chance of getting a job at the Labour Exchanges. The Deputies who talk in that way ought to be ashamed of themselves. If we had the regard for the sacrifices that we have for the services of the men of 1916 and of the men of the Black and Tan period we would not have them on the Labour Exchange queues to-day. We would have ensured in the quarter of a century during which we have had some control over our own affairs that those honoured soldiers of the State would now be in the position where they would not have to join an unemployment queue at the Labour Exchange for work. Apparently that is the normal thing.

We talk about the men who served in the emergency. Those men deserve everything that we can give them. I say they have been let down badly by the previous Administration and that the present Administration has not done all that it should for them. I think of some of these men who served the State in 1916 dying in James's Street. I think that not so long ago one of them died and his employer had to provide the coffin for him. Then we have humbugs here who had the chance over years to look after these people talking about what we should do for the soldiers. I always like to take the line of being lenient and charitable. I never like to see the full punishment imposed on anybody for any offence. My own profession has shown me that there are many different grades of guilt and, therefore, there should be many different grades of punishment. The wisest and the most just judge is the man who tries to deal in a charitable, humane manner with the person who comes before him and who has committed an offence. What sort of law have we in this country? If every judge had the mentality of these Deputies opposite, he would say: "You must suffer the full penalty of the law, no mitigation, no reduction whatever".

The Minister is trying to do a very small thing, to leave these people eligible for relief work. In a Christian country in the twentieth century of our civilisation, it is not very much to leave them available for that small thing. But the position is used by humbugs in this House, I repeat, for the purpose of making political capital out of it. I myself have been a comrade of the men who served this country over a long period. I am proud of these men, and I would be anxious to do everything I could for them. Everything that I have been able to do at any stage, I have done. I think it is hypocritical for people who had a chance of looking after them to talk here in the sanctimonious, humbugging way in which they have spoken about them in this debate.

Major de Valera

There is one point which must not be forgotten in all this. Nobody is going to be in the least worried about relieving a number of persons of penalties. It is very often a very good thing to do. The only difficulty, of course, is the matter of principle. If you think of the morale of your own forces for the future—and that I will maintain against anybody—there is a serious problem for us to consider objectively there: whether in the interests of your own Defence Forces and the discipline in these forces of a particular group of people who will only be tested under emergency conditions rigorous discipline is necessary? Whether the preservation of that discipline demands that you have these sanctions and must maintain them is a matter of principle which we cannot lightly pass over here. On that ground alone, I find serious cause for thought in this section.

From the point of view of pardoning individuals or forgiving past offences, we can all very readily agree that it is a noble and proper thing to do. So you might say about all people who have transgressed. Surely we are all of opinion that the one thing for all people who have transgressed is to forgive them. Yes, but, unfortunately, society being society, we must insist on sanctions, because the sad experience of the human race is that if sanctions are not insisted upon, the order of society will not be maintained. So much for the principle. Now with regard to ex-soldiers. People have accused us of being hypocritical in this matter. What was the actual position? The position was that, at the end of the war, a section of the Army General Staff directly charged with the purpose was actively engaged, on the Minister's direction on resettlement plans. A White Paper was produced. It was the best that could be done within the financial resources of this State. It was not what anybody would have been satisfied with. But one of the big problems we were up against was this problem of employment. It was of particular interest to the General Staff and to the Department of Defence officials in regard to two things—both the demobilisation after the emergency and the provision of future suitable employment for retiring Army personnel. The survey there showed that, within the actual control of any Government here, the number of appointments was very limited. The very small number of appointments which a Government could make or un-make was extremely limited, and hardly counted in the picture. A direction was given to the Civil Service authorities and special concessions were made with regard to Civil Service examinations, and, so far as I know, these provisions were carried out.

With regard to employment outside that, the only thing that any Government could do was to try to get co-operation, because there was no legal machinery by which you could compel employers to employ particular people. It was not feasible to design such legislation. There was legislation with regard to reinstatement. It was the best ingenuity could evolve. But that in itself and of its very nature was necessarily ineffective. You were also up against trade union rules and there you had a conflict between two different opinions, for which two sides could be argued. It was all right to say from the point of view of the overriding right of the soldier: "Put him in anyway and sweep everything else aside." The trade unions had other problems to face in this regard and could not accept the proposition just as simply as that.

I give these examples to show the difficulties that were there and the fact that this Government or their predecessors could do very little more where numbers are concerned than try to give a lead and make recommendations and, by providing for the type of employment where they had a direct interest, to try to lead others.

Deputy Cowan, I think, was coming back to something I said. One matter in which ex-soldiers had a complaint was the number of firms in this country employing ex-soldiers of other armies in preference to ex-soldiers of our own. What could be done about that, except passing a whole set of penal legislation which would probably bring greater evils in its train, the type of legislation which it is desirable to avoid? The Government themselves were limited in anything they could do. Some Deputies will say: "Let the Government do this and that. The Government must do everything. You did not employ them when you were the Government." The fact is that the only resources the Government have are the resources of the people. The only money they have to spend is the money of the people. It ultimately resolves itself back in such matters to what you can get in the line of co-operation from the people. In the particular circumstances of the ex-servicemen, the dice to a certain extent were loaded against them, in that certain employers had sympathies otherwise, and were giving preferences that were not fair preferences from the point of view of the general interest of this State. Preferences were given to people who had served abroad in other armies. You had the bulk of the people relatively indifferent, in spite of propaganda and what Government Departments could do in the matter.

My case is simply this—no vindictiveness to anyone. I would not even question this matter if it were not for the matter of principle and the discipline of the Army. But the dice were so loaded against these emergency soldiers and regular soldiers and reservists, who had served right through and honourably discharged their obligations, that everything that we can do, whether big or small, should be done on their behalf. For my part, my only objection to this section is that I feel it possibly puts them at a further disadvantage. But, if one could be certain that no person in the already barred category would obtain a priority against a person entitled by having served right through, I would not be anxious to press my objection very much further; always, of course, subject to a matter which we have not discussed in great detail, the question of how far it is necessary to maintain such sanctions once imposed in order to preserve the discipline of the Defence Forces for the future.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to point out to Deputy de Valera, as a member of a public body in connection with which jobs did arise, that the chairman, who is a member of the Deputy's Party and other people representing Fianna Fáil on the county council, would not give a preference to an ex-soldier. Is that right? They would not give an ex-soldier a preference. We had cases of two officers and a private who applied for a job. They got two votes —myself and a colleague. Is that the right treatment for the ex-soldiers for whom Deputy de Valera is appealing? Do you not think the local authority should have given the preference there?

Major de Valera

One has to know all the circumstances, but I think, on general principles, the ex-soldier has a clear priority.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to point out to you, as one in the know, that on that local authority, your Party would not give a vote to ex-officers or a private who served the State. I can prove all that.

Mr. Lynch

I would not have intervened if it were not for the vehement manner in which Deputy Cowan indicted the previous Administration for completely disregarding ex-members of the Army. I know, and I am sure that if Deputy Cowan is honest with himself, he also knows, that in many instances they had particular concern for these men. I was a member of the Civil Service at a time when ex-members of the Army were getting preferential treatment in the matter of Civil Service appointments. Deputy Cowan and others must have seen for a number of years advertisements where the upper age limit was extended in Civil Service appointments in favour of members of the Defence Forces, and I am sure that many persons will remember that preference marks were given for service in the Army. I might instance the case where there was a special examination held in order to fill Civil Service posts, and they were confined exclusively to members of the Defence Forces. As a member of the Civil Service, I knew there was a certain amount of uneasiness and unrest, even though it was not publicly voiced, in the Civil Service, as a result of the preferential treatment for ex-soldiers.

It is grossly unfair that Deputy Cowan, with a flagrant disregard for the facts, should allege that Fianna Fáil, when they were the Government, told those men to go to the place that he wanted them to go to. I will not use the phrase the Deputy used. If I do not do so it is not that I am being hypocritical in any sense, but I consider it is not a proper phrase to be used here; it may be used outside, but certainly not here. There are instances of men who were appointed to Civil Service posts out of the Army. Take the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as one example. Linesmen and maintenance men were frequently appointed. There are many ex-soldiers serving in the maintenance section of the Department.

As regards men who probably would not be qualified to sit for Civil Service examinations, I know in my own county where local authorities inserted advertisements indicating a definite preference for ex-Army men. If the term humbug can be aptly used, it could be used in reference to people who make flagrant and unsubstantiated charges against the Fianna Fáil Administration because of disregard, as the Deputy described it, for ex-members of the Defence Forces. What the Deputy suggested is a complete falsehood. When he examined the situation he was putting the microscope, as it were, to the blind eye.

As regards the general principle of the section, there is a lot in what he said about men joining the Army probably in a rush or in a moment of indiscretion. Nevertheless, we must always look to the next emergency and if people get the impression that they can desert from an army and nobody will think the worse of them, then what kind of personnel can we expect for the composition of an army? I suggest there is merit in Deputy Cowan's argument, but there is equal merit in the amendment that Deputy Traynor has tabled.

Mr. Bartley

I would like to point out to the Minister that in my area a large number of volunteers answered the call on the outbreak of the emergency. It was an area in which the Volunteer force was fairly strong and I am glad to be able to say that they acquitted themselves well. I think the number of desertions was very small indeed. I have not heard much talk about desertions among those who were in the Regular Army or among the Volunteer force. Any opinions I did hear expressed were all in favour of the disqualification that the Army authorities recommended to the previous Government.

I have sympathy with the view expressed by Deputy Cowan, but I think the other viewpoint must take precedence. After all, the common good should be our principal concern and I think the period of seven years inserted in the previous Bill was not too harsh. I think the Minister ought to consider the position well before he changes it.

There were other facets of our defence system that have not got so much attention as the soldier. We had, for instance, the people who produced the bread and those who produced the fuel. I am more concerned with those who produced the fuel. They were practically conscripted. They were not allowed to leave the country. Many of them could have deserted. Probably they had better opportunities of deserting than had the soldier. My experience in my area was that they did not do so. If we had a conscript Army here, possibly what the Minister is doing might have more merit in it, but seeing that our forces were voluntary I think those who remained loyal have a claim and, in any event, some recognisable distinction ought to be made between those who continued to serve to the end and those who deserted for the lure of high pay. That lure, I know, was very strong.

If another emergency occurs, although the last one is not yet over, my own personal view is that when we are building up an Army we ought to adopt some form of selective conscription. The reason I say that is that a great many men were called up who were members of the Volunteer force, and who had very useful work to perform for the nation at home. There were others who had not similar duties to carry out as private citizens. They confined themselves to joining the auxiliary force. I think that was quite wrong, and the nation lost as a result. If you had some form of selective conscription that anomaly would not have arisen. The Minister should consider that aspect.

Dr. O'Higgins

I suggest to the Dáil that practically every aspect of this has been examined and re-examined. I think I have given every reasonable assurance asked for, and I have asked the Dáil not to continue these penalties. As far as there was any immunity or encouragement given in the past, then I think Deputy Traynor and myself share the guilt; so far as deciding upon whom the greater guilt rests is concerned, he remedied the penalties of imprisonment and that kind of thing, and I am proposing to remit after three years the last four years of legal imprisonment. Every Deputy has expressed his view, and I ask that this matter should not be put to a division.

Mr. Traynor

There is one simple assurance which the Minister can give us without giving us every assurance. That simple assurance is merely to delete this section which in my opinion should not have been inserted in the Bill. So far as immunity is concerned, I suggested to the Minister that the action which he has taken in inserting this section in the Bill amounts to a grant of immunity to all future potential deserters. The Minister seemed to take exception to that remark. He seems to me to be rather sensitive about the suggestion that this section was so granting immunity. Then he went on to suggest that I had already granted immunity by reason of the fact that I brought in the measure which he is now repealing. He suggested that the penalties which would accrue from a court-martial would have been very much more severe than the penalties incorporated in the Bill which he is repealing. Then he went on further to suggest that the penalties which in fact existed in that legislation are very severe and he went on to describe some individual whom he interviewed and referred to the state of that individual. The whole moral of the story appeared to be that this man was suffering as a result of that particular legislation. I rather imagine that the Minister was arguing against himself in taking that line of argument. All I can say is that there is a principle involved in this section.

Dr. O'Higgins

The principle of the pound of flesh.

Mr. Traynor

All we ask is that section be not inserted. There is no question of a pound of flesh or anything else. It is a genuine and honest belief. The Minister has been discussing this whole subject with kid gloves on, and now he is going to get on knuckle dusters.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am ready to do that with the Deputy at any time.

Mr. Traynor

I have told the Minister that there is one single method of giving us an assurance and that is by the deletion of this section from the Bill.

Dr. O'Higgins

And leave the pariah dogs there for another four years.

Mr. Traynor

Other Deputies have discussed the details of this measure, and I do not want to go over them again. I have discussed them already, but I should like to say that Deputy Cowan, in discussing the matters which he did discuss, showed his abysmal ignorance when he asked the question: "What did the former Government do for these men?" If he had the interest which he suggests himself he has in these men, he would have had some knowledge of the fact that we produced a White Paper which gave all the necessary details of what would be done for these men.

Captain Cowan

And you did nothing for them.

Mr. Traynor

We did, to the uttermost limits of our powers. Everything that was included in the White Paper was, to the limit of our powers, carried out, however limited these powers may have been. If the Deputy has any doubts about that he should consult the Ex-Service Men's Association, and I am sure that these men will be honest enough to give him information as to what was, in fact, secured as a result of Government co-operation with these organisations.

Captain Cowan

There are thousands of them over in London.

Mr. Traynor

Deputy Cowan makes the further charge against the former Government, and the present Government for that matter, that 1916 men are dying in the Union hospital. He is showing his ignorance of the fact also that the former Government made provision whereby these men would secure allowances which would at least guarantee them frugal comfort and prevent them dying in institutions such as the Deputy has suggested. The Deputy gave himself a very gracious recommendation—I have not heard anyone else giving him the same recommendation—in respect of his interest and his desire to help these men.

Mr. McQuillan

The men in the Army would tell you how much you did for them.

Mr. Traynor

The least you say about the Army the better for yourself.

Mr. Davin

That is not a threat, of course.

Mr. Traynor

As far as this particular section is concerned it is the intention of this Party to oppose it.

Mr. Coburn

During the time I have been a member of the House I have not taken much part in discussions concerning the Defence Forces but on this occasion I take the liberty of saying that I think on the whole, the Minister made a very strong case for the retention of this section in the Bill. I thought the reasons given would be sufficient to convince members on the opposite benches that there was no necessity for a division on this section. Deputy Traynor referred to the serious crime which desertion was. I agree that desertion is a very serious crime and one that should be punished, especially when it occurs in a time of emergency. I am, however, of the opinion that one must take into consideration the peculiar set of circumstances that existed at the time these young men deserted from the Army here. It is because I have given a little attention to that aspect that I was so interested in the observations of Deputy Cowan. Candidly I must say, as an Irishman, that I do not believe the term "deserter" should be applied in the case of many of the young men who left the Irish Army and went to fight in the British Army.

I believe, and I say it without fear of contradiction or without any qualification, that during that war democracy was fighting for its life against the evil of Nazism and every other "ism" seeking to destroy the liberties of the people belonging to the democratic nations and those young men were fighting as much for Ireland as they were fighting for the countries whose armies they went to join. I do not think it is right to say that they were deserters in the real sense of the word—taking all the conditions into consideration and the ease with which they could cross the Border, as I myself know well, and join the British Army. All the Minister is asking at the moment is that the seven years' disqualification be reduced by four. That does not mean that the safeguard in relation to the giving of preference in employment to ex-members of the Defence Forces will not continue. I think Deputy Major de Valera, to his credit, was prepared to accept the very clear reply which the Minister gave him, not once but on two occasions, in this connection. Deputy Traynor, the ex-Minister for Defence, is not now accepting it. As the Minister says, he must have his pound of flesh and put this section to a division.

As one who is looked upon as an Imperialist, I have always maintained outside this House as well as inside it that it takes as good a man to live for his country as to die for it. I have the greatest respect for the man who was a member of the Army, but, on the question of giving preference in employment to ex-members of the Defence Forces, it must be remembered, too, that the married man with five or six children is fighting the battle of life. He is doing so, not for a week or a month or a year, but every year. I say that that man deserves equal consideration with the ex-member of the Defence Forces, and I would say that from any public platform in the country. I would go as far to look for work for the ex-member of the Army as I would for any other man, but at the same time I honestly think that the agricultural labourer and the artisan who is rearing a family, is the backbone of the country. They are fighting the real battle in so far as the preservation of this nation or of any other nation on the earth is concerned. I say to the Deputies opposite, in all sincerity, to forget politics for once in a while, and to look at this question from the Minister's point of view. I would ask them not to be too anxious to penalise those men who, they say, deserted—but who I say could not, in many cases, be described as deserters— and give them the right to live in their own country. God knows it is questionable whether it is worth while talking about the few vacancies that occur. I really am amused when I hear all this talk about preference—preference for the work that does not exist. Is it worth while having this long discussion as to whether you will penalise these men? Surely the ex-Army man would be the last in the world to say to his comrade standing beside him at the Labour Exchange: "You will not get work because you deserted the Army." No, he would die before he would say that.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 51.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Brennan, Joseph P.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Spring, Daniel
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Question declared carried.

Sections 9 to 16, inclusive, and the Title put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

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

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.