asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that a fairly substantial number of N.C.O.s and men will normally be due for discharge from the Army this year; and whether it is proposed to make any special provision for them on a somewhat similar basis to that made for certain officers who were recently discharged on full pay.
Ceisteanna (d'Atógaint). Questions (Resumed). - Provision for Discharged N.C.O.s and Men.
I am aware that a number of non-commissioned officers and privates are due for discharge from the permanent Defence Force this year.
As these men are due for discharge on termination of their engagement, the question of making special provision for them does not arise.
Does the Minister think it reasonable and equitable that a number of officers, including some well placed officers, should be given pay for two years so as to enable them to rehabilitate themselves on discharge from the Army, whilst no consideration whatever of a similar character is extended to N.C.O.s and men who have given a very considerable period of service in the Army?
These officers were not given two years' full pay to enable them to rehabilitate themselves. The fact was that the previous Government had given these officers a two years' extension of service. When I came in, I decided that, in order to restore the position of their fellow officers, this should be taken away from them. It was subsequently decided that they should be given the two years' supplementary retired pay in lieu of the extension of service which had been granted to them previously. As I said, that does not arise in this case, as no extended service has been taken away from the N.C.O.s and men referred to in the question raised by Deputy Norton. They are retiring on the completion of their engagement. There is no comparison between the two situations.
Seeing that the Minister did interfere with the previous arrangement, which could of course have been extended to N.C.O.s and men——
Oh!
There was an understanding at the time that the position would be examined.
No.
Wait a second. We can get the documents.
When documents were produced the last time, the Minister concerned did not like it.
There was an understanding at the time that similar arrangements would apply to the N.C.O.s and men similarly circumstanced. A change of Government took place and a change of policy also took place. Seeing that the Minister did interfere with the arrangements made by the outgoing Government and introduced something which was of substantial benefit to the officer class, would he not now consider making some contribution towards the rehabilitation of these N.C.O.s and men now discharged after long service in the Army?
As Deputy Norton well knows, the Minister has already made arrangements to facilitate the rehabilitation of N.C.O.s and men leaving the Army. When I came into the Department of Defence, the only provision made for these men was 21 days' pre-discharge leave. Now, after 21 years' service, an N.C.O. or man gets 91 days' special pre-discharge leave; a man with 12 to 21 years' service gets 56 days; and a man with 2 to 12 years' service gets 28 days. That is as much as I have been able to do for the moment. There is no similarity between the two cases.
Surely the Minister will admit that that pre-discharge leave is small and paltry in comparison with the substantial remuneration which was extended to the officer class?
They should never have got it.
It is a lot more than they had during the previous Government's time.
They would not have been discharged from the Army then.
These men had come to the end of the term for which they were engaged. There has been no alteration in that sense since I took over. Deputy Norton had no interest in them then.
Deputy Norton had every interest in them as will be clear if the Minister talks to the soldiers at the Curragh Camp and the civilian workers there, over 100 of whom are idle since the present Minister assumed control at the Curragh Camp.
He showed no interest.